Wiktionary:Beer parlour

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

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Beer parlour

Lautrec a corner in a dance hall 1892.jpg

Welcome, all, to the Beer Parlour! This is the place where many a historic decision has been made and where important discussions are being held daily. If you have a question about fundamental Wiktionary aspects—that is, about policies, proposals and other community-wide features—please place it at the bottom of the list (click on Start a new discussion), and it will be considered. Please keep in mind the rules of discussion: remain civil, don't make personal attacks, don't change other people's posts, and sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name with timestamp. Also keep in mind the purpose of this page. There are various other discussion rooms which may serve the idea behind your questions better. Please take a look to see which is most appropriate.

Sometimes discussion identifies an issue as an idea for policy development or rewriting. Such discussions may be taken out of the Beer parlour to a relevant page, or a brand new page may be created. Usually, the active policy pages will be listed in one of the sections below. See also the policy development page and the votes page.

Questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely, as it would very soon become too long to be editable. After a period of time with no further activity (usually a couple of weeks), information will be moved to the archives. We make a point to preserve all discussions that were started here in the archives. However, talk that is clearly not intended for this page may be moved and will not end up in the archives. Enjoy the Beer parlour!

Beer parlour archives edit
2002
December
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015


Contents

June 2015

Good site?[edit]

Hello. Do you like Wiktionary? --Keyboard Masher (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keyboard Masher: I do. Do you? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Meh, it's OK. I'd enjoy it more if it came in more colours. --Keyboard Masher (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
We need a "smellyvision" version. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Two words: Cleveland steamer. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yuck! --Hekaheka (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Inuktitut characters[edit]

Would someone like to add entries for each of the characters use in Inuktitut words (those that we haven't already got)?

For instance the word ᑕᕝᕙ ‎(tavva) contains the characters ‎(ta) (which we have), and ‎(v) and ‎(va) (which we haven't). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Normalization of entries vote[edit]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-05/Normalization of entries started today. --Daniel 22:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Pywikibot compat will no longer be supported - Please migrate to pywikibot core[edit]

Sorry for English, I hope someone translates this.
Pywikibot (then "Pywikipediabot") was started back in 2002. In 2007 a new branch (formerly known as "rewrite", now called "core") was started from scratch using the MediaWiki API. The developers of Pywikibot have decided to stop supporting the compat version of Pywikibot due to bad performance and architectural errors that make it hard to update, compared to core. If you are using pywikibot compat it is likely your code will break due to upcoming MediaWiki API changes (e.g. T101524). It is highly recommended you migrate to the core framework. There is a migration guide, and please contact us if you have any problem.

There is an upcoming MediaWiki API breaking change that compat will not be updated for. If your bot's name is in this list, your bot will most likely break.

Thank you,
The Pywikibot development team, 19:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your usage of English is unforgivable :) —suzukaze (tc) 23:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Votes on desysopping inactive admins[edit]

WF has created votes for the desysopping without prejudice of four sysops who have been wholly inactive for years. As these votes have largely escaped public notice, I've extended them for 10 more days so that more of the community can weigh in on whether or not to remove their bits. Please vote here: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-05/User:Caladon for de-sysop, Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-05/User:Jun-Dai for de-sysop, Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-05/User:Celestianpower for de-sysop, Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-05/User:EivindJ for de-sysop. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone tried contacting these admins for their input? bd2412 T 02:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
(Follow-up) I have posted messages on the talk pages of these four admins, and have sent e-mails to the three who have e-mail set up. bd2412 T 02:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Entries for ISO codes[edit]

About having entries for language codes, like en or ang — and also ISO family/script/country codes. Can we have those, provided they are attested as usual, or was there some discussion or some issue preventing creating entries for them? Granted, one can predict that comparatively only a few, far from all codes would be attestable.

It's a bit difficult finding previous discussions in this subject as I naturally can't search for "language code entries" or "language code" without seeing a thousand unrelated discussions, but here are some, all of those are from 2010:

I've tried my hand at attesting Citations:Latn meaning Latin script. What do you think, that's good enough that we can create the entry Latn? I tried to find citations where Latn is being used in running text, in accordance with WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. --Daniel 10:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Case in point: We have Category:ISO 3166-1 (country codes) with 471 entries. --Daniel 11:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it comes down to the individual attestability of every single code. Some might be attestable and others might not. Remember we don't even keep units of measure (like stupid zettakilograms or whatever) unless they are attested, even if they follow official naming rules. Equinox 10:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I seem to think after jv failed we delete all ISO 639 codes, which is dubious because they didn't all fail RFV, just one or a couple of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary Old High German[edit]

This is merely a mental exercise on a dogmatic question, but who knows, one day the Alemans could descend off their mountains into our dictionary, so give it a serious shot.
In the south of Switzerland, the local dialects

  • Do not feature final obstruent devoicing
  • Do not diphthongise PGM long vowels
  • Have long consonants
  • Have not lengthened short vowels in open syllables
  • Know at least five different vowel qualities in unstressed syllables (i, u, e, o, a)

So nobody can tell me that's not Old High German. At the same time, there are Alemannic dialects which have merged all unstressed vowels into /ə/. How they are not Middle High German is beyond me as well. Is it really sensible to list both as Alemannic rather than as living forms of OHG and MHG? Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A language is not defined solely by sound changes, but by other things as well like grammar and lexicon. I would be more convinced by your argument if OHG were more intelligible to these speakers than Old Norse is to Icelanders. —CodeCat 23:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Pardon? I wasn't making an argument, I was asking a question. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it really sensible to follow the lead of professional scholars on the subject? I'm going with yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Northern German - Category:Southern German‎[edit]

Neither of these have a definition. If they're to be kept, they should. Especially in the former category, many of these terms aren't actually restricted to Northern Germany, they're used everywhere. They might be more common in some regions than others but that's not what the regional label is for. -- Liliana 15:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Define "elsewhere" and please give examples. I'm highly baffled by your statement. (Which doesn't mean I'm not believing you.) Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
For example, the term Rummel is definitely not restricted to Northern Germany, it's used everywhere. Same with moin, it might have originated there, but it's used in the whole country nowadays. You can find terms like this in the other category as well: händisch is definitely not restricted to Southern Germany.
There is no line you can draw on the map to denote that north of it is Northern German and south of it is Southern German, unlike (say) Swiss and Austrian German which stop pretty much at the national borders. -- Liliana 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not a reason to ditch the labels, especially given how common they are in other dictionaries, including de.Wikt and the Duden. There's no single precise definition of the "Southern US", and not all of the terms used in Category:Southern US English are used in all of the same exact places. But if certain terms are widely perceived/agreed to be "southern German" or "Southern US", categorizing them as such can still be useful. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, "Southern US" is a very well defined region, it refers to very specific states. You can't make that claim for the German categories discussed here. -- Liliana 22:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
But Southern US English is not restricted to the states considered the South. Indiana isn't the South, but the language of the southern half of Indiana is distinctly Southern. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You rediscovered the fact that language boundaries do not conform to political boundaries. Nevertheless, there is a more-or-less defined region, even if there is a gray area in between. --WikiTiki89 15:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment 1: de.Wikt also uses these labels (e.g. in de:kross, de:Obacht), often simply linked to de:süddeutsch (süddeutsch) and de:norddeutsch (norddeutsch). Does that provide sufficient definition?
Comment 2: A while ago, I started a discussion about the redundancy of having both Category:North American English/Category:North American French and Category:American English/French and Category:Canadian English/French. The decision was to reduce the "North American" label to an alias of "US, Canada" and deprecate its category. We already have an "Austrian" label, would it be better to deprecate these two labels in favour of other state- or dialect- specific labels? OTOH, a category for "Bavarian German" regional German could be considered confusing by some. (Compare how "Swiss German" regional German was renamed "Switzerland German" by me because some users, although not me, felt the former name was too confusing.)
- -sche (discuss) 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That might indeed be better although I have no idea how to divide the regions. There definitely are terms that are used only in Bavaria and nowhere else (grüß Gott being perhaps the most famous example). We already have {{DDR}} for terms from East Germany. -- Liliana 21:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Two things: 1. If I ever catch a Bavarian saying 'moin', I'll smack some Grüß Gott into him. 2. To me Northern Germany always seemed very strictly defined as "Bundesländer with a sea coast" and more loosely as "areas where Low German happens". "Southern Germany" seems to be defined as areas where Alemannisch+Bairisch+Oberfränkisch happen. Isn't this how it's used 99% of the time, especially in linguistic context? Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
And the middle states are what, nothing? -- Liliana 20:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Central Germany. - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose that we formally define Southern Germany for WT as the area south of the Speyrer and Northern Germany north of the Uerdinger line. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"Bundesländer with a seacoast" would exclude Berlin and Brandenburg (which are often considered part of Northern Germany) and Hamburg (which always is). The Uerdingen line seems better for linguistic purposes such as ours. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I've not encountered Berlin and Brandenburg being considered Northern Germany, culturally, by anyone in my life. Hamburg of course is part, but it's within the realm of coastal states, so to speak. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What to do when the lemma form (and only that form) has alternative forms?[edit]

When a single lemma has several different options for a particular inflection, we create entries for all of them and give them the appropriate definition. So for example, an English noun with two possible plurals will simply have one plural entry for each of them. But in some cases, the form that we have chosen as the lemma will have alternative forms itself. In some cases, this implies that the stem of the word is different, so that they have two separate sets of inflections. In this case, we define one of them as "alternative form" and include inflection tables on both.

But it's also possible that there is one single paradigm that happens to have two possible forms for the lemma form only. For example, a noun might have two different nominative singular forms, but there is only one form for all other inflections. Or a verb could have two possible infinitives. How should we handle these cases? If we use "alternative form of" then it's misleading because the user might think that this is an entirely different verb with its own inflections, when in reality only the lemma form happens to have an alternative form. So I'm thinking that it would make more sense to list this as, for example, "nominative singular of" or "infinitive of", just like we do with any other inflected form.

Of course, the question also arises which of the forms should be chosen as the "real" lemma. —CodeCat 22:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think our current practice is good and needs no changing. See for example honos. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but which lemma do you have the inflections point to, honor or honos? —CodeCat 22:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Either to the lemma, or to both the lemma and alternative form. I prefer just to the lemma, which in this case is honor. --WikiTiki89 23:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Alternative forms are also lemmas. They're categorised as such. —CodeCat 23:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That means nothing more than that there is a discrepancy between how I used "lemma" in my sentence and how we use it in categorization. You still understood what I said. --WikiTiki89 01:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Meta and WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 23:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that we use "alternative form" to mean both a single inflected wordform sometimes, and an entire paradigm at others. --Tropylium (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a very good point. Maybe we should start distinguishing between them. --WikiTiki89 16:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think "alternative form" should only be used for lemmas. For non-lemma forms, the distinction is moot because both are equally forms of their lemma. —CodeCat 17:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. What I thought Tropylium was talking about was that we have things like "ax is an alternative form of axe", which means nothing more than "the form ax is an alternative of the form axe", and then we have things like "plow is an alternative form of plough" which really means "plow and all of the forms plow represents are respectively alternatives of plough and all the forms plough represents". --WikiTiki89 18:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. And I'm saying we should only be using "alternative form" for the latter. We should also not be using "alternative form" for non-lemmas, so nothing like marking octopodes as an alternative form of octopuses. Both should be marked simply as the plural of octopus. —CodeCat 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
So then what would you do for ax? --WikiTiki89 19:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What we should consider is what to do with the plural. If axes should be defined as a plural of both axe and ax, then the latter is an alternative spelling of the former. But if it's only the plural of axe, then ax just be an alternative spelling of the singular form only. —CodeCat 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If we follow what you said, then we can't do the latter because you can't have an alternative form of a single form. Unless you want to make an exception and only allow this for the lemma form. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, axes is, in fact, the plural of ax as well as the plural of axe (not to mention the plural of axis), which is exactly what the page already says. Do you think that we should say it's the plural of axe (and axis) alone, and not mention ax on the page at all? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's the idea of this proposal. If one word happens to have two or more lemma forms, then it's not helpful to have inflected form entries that link to each of them separately.
The way I see it is that we treat lemmas as "inflection sets". An alternative form has, by the treatment proposed here, a different (or at least partially different) inflection set from the word it's an alternative form of, and is therefore a lemma in itself, albeit one that is used in variation with another. This means that if two lemmas have the same inflection set except for the lemma form, then they clearly have the same inflection set and only the lemma form of the inflection set has several forms. This is no different from having a non-lemma form that has several forms. For example, having one inflection with two nominative singular forms is conceptually no different from one with two genitive plural forms.
This is not a simple rule, though. After all, there are cases like English nouns where the inflection set consists of only two items, singular and plural. Does a word belong to a different inflection set if the singulars differ but have the plural forms in common? This is something we would need to determine separately. —CodeCat 20:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation links[edit]

Using {{seeCites}} at the entry example returns the text:

"For usage examples of this term, see the citations page."

Sometimes the citation page linked is different from the entry name, but the template text shows absolutely no indication of that. For that reason I would like to edit the text.

Proposal:

  • Insert the title of the citations page in the text.
  • If the entry is different, link to the entry too. (Use {{l-self}}.)

For example it might return this text:

"For usage examples, see the citations page of example." (unlinked entry)
"For usage examples, see the citations page of example." (linked entry, if the template is used anywhere other than example itself)

Rationale:

At the Portuguese entry como, some citations are at Citations:como, but the citations which are verb forms of comer would be at Citations:comer, both citation pages are linked from the respective POS section but I would like to change the fact that there is no indication that these are actually different citation pages.

After editing the template, at the entry como we would have both:

  • Adverb/Conjunction/Interjection

"For usage examples, see the citations page of como." (unlinked)

  • Verb

"For usage examples, see the citations page of comer." (linked)
--Daniel 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. Good idea. It's not uncommon for citations of one word to be in another word's citations page, either because citations of all spellings and hyphenations have been gathered in one place (Citations:moose-misse), or because citations of all inflected forms have been placed on the lemma's page (Citations:they), or potentially for some other reason. - -sche (discuss) 15:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not just show the actual name of the citation page? Citations:example? —CodeCat 17:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That'd be fine by me. - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per -sche. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support.​—msh210 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, with both {{seeCites}} and {{seemoreCites}}. --Daniel 00:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A new (better) way to collapse inflection tables?[edit]

MediaWiki:Gadget-legacy.js contained a second, apparently unused method of collapsing elements. It's more flexible: rather than having to put everything in wrapper divs, you can specify for individual elements whether they should be hidden or not. Moreover, it's possible to specify that elements should be displayed only when the element is collapsed. This makes it possible to have a table that shows one set of table rows when collapsed, and another set when expanded. For inflection tables, the expanded version could show the full table, while the collapsed version shows only the most important/least predictable forms (principal parts).

I have created an example of this at User:CodeCat/vsExample. Compare it to the original table at gooien. Note that there are no more wrapper divs, the table itself is the outermost element now. This makes it possible, in theory, to have the table scale automatically as its contents gets too wide. This was not possible with the old method. —CodeCat 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Might be a good way to hide selected portions (like cognate lists) of our too-long etymologies. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. We already do that with the old "div" method in some pages, but with the new method, we can make it look different and more appealing. Though, to be fair, I usually remove cognates if they are just duplicated in many entries and if they can easily be found on a proto-language page. —CodeCat 01:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There are more than 7,500 entries containing "{{m|ine-pro|", "English", "Etymology", and "cognate" and/or "compare", so we have a way to go in cleaning them out. I could see why it is handy not to compel those with specialized interests to rummage around in multiple entries, but most users have no interest in such matters and find our above-the-definition material intimidating and confusing. Perhaps all lists of cognates should be enclosed in a template, which allowed them to be hidden by default and displayed for a given registered user always by gadgetry or by use of a show/home control. Perhaps something similar would make sense for the portions of etymology related to all or some reconstructed languages. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've implemented this for the Dutch inflection tables now, and I'm quite pleased with the result. See groot, goed, verbogen, zijn, werpen, uitwerpen for some examples. But now that the most important forms are shown in the inflection table even when it's collapsed, it's a bit redundant to show them in the headword line as well. Presumably they should be removed from there. If we start extending this kind of inflection table to other languages, then we should probably remove the forms from the headword line then too. For example, we would no longer need to show the principal parts of Latin words in the headword line if they are already shown in the inflection table. It's rather redundant otherwise. —CodeCat 13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@kc kennylau pinging because he has worked on Latin templates recently. —CodeCat 13:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

They do look good. I wouldn't rush to remove the redundancy on the inflection line as we have trained users to look there for core inflection information. Perhaps the redundancy is really in the new tables. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Perching birds[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Category:Perching_birds.

HTTPS[edit]

22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Apache nesting[edit]

(Has this been discussed before?) Only some Apache varieties are nested. Should they all be nested, or should none of them be nested? - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the Wikipedia article (w:Southern Athabaskan languages), Navajo is more closely related to Western Apache and the Chiricahua/Mescalero group than it is to Plains Apache, Jicarilla Apache or Lipan Apache. That makes it kind of pointless to talk about nesting based on linguistic criteria. We have to decide whether we're nesting based on cultural/historical commonalities, in which case Plains Apache shouldn't be included, or just convenience- lumping together everything named "Apache". I think anything but the latter is going to be confusing to the average user, so I'm inclined to either nest them all or nest none of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I would nest none of them, n part because users will probably look for Plains Apache under "P", etc. I question our nesting of Ancient Greek and Mycenaean Greek under modern Greek, too. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Taxonomic (family) nesting and evolutionary nesting (not yet suggested) seem to suit us, not users unlike us. Listing under hypernyms is at least accessible for ordinary users, as long as the modern language name, which is also usually the hypernym, appears where it belongs in an alphabetical sequence. Sortable tables would address this and similar issues in other data (such as definitions), but they may not be feasible, reliable etc. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
We don't really have any rules on nesting anyway, do we? We seem to do it on a very subjective, intuition-based basis. I feel like it makes sense to nest Primitive Irish, Old Irish, and Middle Irish under Irish, but if the rule is to group ancestral forms under the equivalent name without words like "Primitive", "Old", "Middle", etc., then it isn't clear where to put Old English and Middle English (since we never have English in translation tables) or Old Norse (since there isn't a language we call "Norse"). I think I would look for Plains Apache under A rather than P, but I don't know how representative I am. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, people look up all varieties of Greek under Greek, and all varieties of Apache under Apache. Navajo is expected to be under Navajo. —Stephen (Talk) 12:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Plurals with a red link for singular[edit]

May I bring this category to your attention. It contains plural words that various people have come across but don't know how to define the singulars.

Any help in providing such a definition would be welcome. Please ignore the appendices, user pages, talk pages and the like. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I have got as far as "g".

With some adjustments to Module:form of, this can probably be extended for any form-of entry whose lemma is missing. —CodeCat 17:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Any idea why Appendix:Proto-Algonquian/aya·pe·waki is in the category? - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Synchronic and diachronic derived terms[edit]

Many languages have terms which were derived through processes that are no longer productive, but where the relationship is still clear enough to be recognised by most speakers. For example, Dutch has many cases in which a noun is derived from the root of a verb through ablaut, or by using a variety of obsolete suffixes. Some examples: springen > sprong, dringen > drang, spreken > gesprek, zien > zicht. The question is whether these can be considered derived terms. I think most Dutch speakers would understand that sprong is derived from springen, even if the actual method of derivation is opaque. But the actual derivation occurred in Pre-Proto-Germanic times.

And if these are derived terms, then where should we draw the line? Is dawn still a derivative of day? lord a derivative of loaf? —CodeCat 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think ====Derived terms==== should be limited to regular derivations whose process is transparent and could be applied to other words. In the examples you gave from Dutch, there are two issues: that it is not clear exactly how the vowel is determined, and that it is not clear without looking at historical evidence whether it was the noun or the verb that came first. Thus, in my opinion, all the examples you gave are better off in the ====Related terms==== section. However, I completely agree that for words whose derivations are still regular and transparent, they should be allowed in ====Derived terms==== even if the derivation took place thousands of years ago in a vastly different parent language. --WikiTiki89 18:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A cutoff point with the clause "could be applied to other words" can get unwieldy quite fast for agglutinative languages. These often have a wide variety of derivative suffixes that are entirely transparent, but not really at all productive in the sense of being applicable to any arbitrary word. E.g. the Finnish suffix -sto regularly yields collectives, but this does not mean it is actually possible to take any random word like roskakori and form something like ˣroskakoristo. Often they will still be productive in the weaker sense that every so often, a new instance of a word using the suffix is added to the language — but this is not really a synchronically measurable property.
On the other hand: mere transparency seems to be too weak a condition. This will generate things like Category:Finnish words prefixed with geronto- or Category:Finnish words prefixed with terato-, although I do not think there are any cases of native Finnish formations using these Hellenic prefixes.
So, perhaps: morphophonological transparency for native derivational processes, versus evidence of productive use for originslly foreign derivational processes? --Tropylium (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all, we are only talking about the ====Derived terms==== section, not the ===Etymology=== section. Second of all, everything you described about -sto fits my definition of "could be applied to other words". Note that I did not say "could be applied to any other word". --WikiTiki89 16:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to add glosses in etymology sections[edit]

Could we make it a policy and/or guideline that editors should add glosses for etyma when working on etymology sections? For instance, knowing that knǫrr ‎(a large merchant ship used in mediaeval Scandinavia) comes from Proto-Germanic *knarzuz is interesting, but what does *knarzuz mean? It would be more useful if *knarzuz were provided with a gloss right there in the etymology section -- especially when we have no entry yet for the given etymon. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The normal practice is to give glosses only if the word means something else than the one preceding it (its descendant). So if knǫrr means the same as *knarzuz then only the former would have a gloss. This also means that if the word never changed meaning throughout its known history, then no glosses should be present at all. —CodeCat 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's only unclear if it isn't followed rigidly (which of course it isn't), but I do feel it would be tedious to see that foot comes from a Middle English word that means 'foot', which comes from an Old English word that means 'foot', which comes from a Proto-Germanic word that means 'foot', which comes from a Proto-Indo-European word that means 'foot' and is cognate with a Sanskrit word that means 'foot' and an Ancient Greek word that means 'foot' and a Latin word that means 'foot'. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • At the bare minimum, it would be useful to have a gloss for the last etymon in the chain, in cases where the meaning hasn't changed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Another set of cases for which we need glosses involves etymon redlinks.
Still another would be an etymologically important missing definition where we have only an incomplete entry for the etymon.
Yet another involves any etymon that is/was highly polysemic, especially in a sense that is less common, archaic, or obsolete.
I find myself constantly trying to look up etymon definitions and being frustrated. When I am able to find the definitions from other sources, the "same definition as previous etymon" assumption proves unwarranted except in the loosest of senses of same. I am often interested in whether a term had achieved a specialized meaning in Ancient Greek or Latin, which specialized meaning are often neglected in our entries.
As a result I would favor having an explicit requirement that we have glosses, except in cases where we have an entry for the etymon, the applicable sense(s) are in the entry, and the applicable sense is clear. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A problem here is that the meanings of words in proto-languages are not necessarily even reconstructible in too much detail. Often it is easy enough to figure out that a word meaning "a" in language A and a word meaning "b" in language B are cognate, but it can be an intractable question if the original meaning was "a", "b", both of them, or perhaps something slightly different altogether. I'm in favor of glossing attested pre-forms in e.g. Latin, especially if they differ, but this policy cannot be fully generalized for all pre-forms. --Tropylium (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
For my use of a dictionary that is a reason to exclude such reconstructions, perhaps by hiding them so they don't waste screen space. DCDuring TALK 09:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
So this is another argument for a user setting "Hide etymologies", I guess? --Tropylium (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The proto-form explains how the cognates fit together, and the cognates themselves give clues about the possible range of meanings for the proto-form- they're complementary. The problem with too many similar cognates is that they obscure that relationship- especially if one branch shares an innovation, and the sheer number of cognates in that branch gives the impression that they're the norm. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Standard forms of words versus regional variants[edit]

If there is a standard version of a word, should it be used in place of regional variants? Changing from one regional variant to another regional variant is counterproductive, but what about changing from a regional variant or alternative form of a word to the word's standard version? --WikiWinters (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This should be decided for each language individually. Some languages have standard forms, but the standard is not widely followed by speakers. So the standard form is not always the most-used or best-known form. —CodeCat 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Always collapse cognate lists in entries[edit]

In the discussion above, User:DCDuring suggested that cognate lists should always be hidden behind a collapsible element of some sort. I do think this is a good idea, because cognates often clutter up etymologies, and it's not unusual to see huge lists of them because of course everyone insists on including their favourite language.

Aside from this, I think it's also worth discussing what else we can do about cognates. In a lot of cases, the cognates are already listed neatly in the descendants section of the term's ancestor. Listing them in the entry as well is redundant then, and duplicates information, so we may want to remove cognates altogether if they're already listed more thoroughly on another, central page. On the other hand, having them in the entry is convenient to the user, at least. So what can we do to alleviate the duplication? —CodeCat 13:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we might consider whether there is any reasonable way to decide whether a cognate for a term should:
  1. Appear unhidden as part of the etymology in the entry for the term (Some cognates seem to be more or less essential elements of an etymology.)
  2. Appear hidden as part of the etymology. (This might be particularly warranted if there is no entry for the term's ancestor at which the term's cognate would appear as a derived term or descendant.)
  3. Not appear at all in the entry, but rather in descendants or derived terms of an ancestor of the term.
But hiding seems to be a good tool for handling cognate lists, pending moving the cognate to descendant or derived term in another entry or possibly creating such entry. Although this is in principle just a temporary solution, it is likely that there will always be some cognates that have no home as descendants or derived terms. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
We could make a template similar to {{etymtree}} in order to list cognates without duplicating information. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Combining hiding with avoidance of duplication seems like a good idea. I never cease to be amazed at how little the performance penalty for well-designed templates/modules+data of such apparent complexity. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It should depend on the number. If there are only three or four cognates listed, there really is no need to hide them and they serve to illustrate the etymology. --WikiTiki89 17:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand and sympathize with that view, but I think many current and potential users find cognates distracting and irrelevant, even to etymology. Curious users will click on whatever unhide control we have and registered users can set it up to display by default for them. That CSS flexibility seems to me to fully address the concerns of all parties, if we are willing to do the work. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
So you would hide them even if there is only one cognate? --WikiTiki89 17:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that cognates in a few representative major languages should be shown as presently. When the number grows beyond "a few" they could be hidden behind a "click to see longer list of cognates" feature. 217.44.208.136 21:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There's always going to be non-neutrality in which languages we choose. For example if we choose Swedish, then people will start adding Norwegian and Danish. Include Finnish, and soon there'll be Estonian too. That's just how it always goes. —CodeCat 22:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean that a fixed list of "major" languages should be enforced. If a Swedish word is used in one place then a Norwegian or Danish one can be used somewhere else. Of course, if people are going to be keeping score ... 217.44.208.136 22:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a matter of keeping score. There are editors who see it as their purpose in life to add cognates in their language to every English term with an etymology, and especially to those with cognates in languages that they see as linguistic rivals. This is most obvious with Albanian and Kurdish, but various Scandinavian and Romance languages do it too. There are also some real partisans in Turkic, Dravidian and in some African language families, but they don't have English cognates to work with. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You can understand "keeping score" as covering all kinds of activities where individuals must have their favourite language in the non-collapsed part of the list on every occasion, rather than accepting a spirit of give and take. 217.44.208.136 00:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll just throw in what I seem to be saying in every discussion recently: If someone wants to do non-harmful work, why would one undo it. Just collapse them where they are non-essential parts of an etymology section or at least be consistent and disallow them in etymology sections completely. No pick and choose, we must avoid every tiniest opportunity for people to argue. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I love (all) cognates. Wyang (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete cognates when they are listed in the proto-page. --Vahag (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've noticed that, when using Century 1911, which as accessible as indexed scans of the pages of the print dictionary, that the often longish etymologies seem to defeat the role that etymologies play in grouping definitions by similarity of meaning. I think that very same defeat of user accessibility is what we have achieved in some of our entries with longer Etymology sections. I had formerly supported the current Etymology-first presentation, but I now wonder whether we should revisit the notion of putting Etymology at the bottom of the group of definitions to which it applies. That practice is what most online dictionaries follow, presumably reflecting their beliefs about user behavior, some of which are almost certainly based on actual click data. Having the Etymology sections below the definitions (in each homonym section) would allow the cognate lists to be as long as anyone wanted without much interfering with users who were interested in definitions. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Definitely agree. Most users want definitions first, so why present them with etymology at the top? —CodeCat 19:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • For words with multiple different etymologies, the "Etymology" headings presently also act as section headings, so some consideration would need to be given about how that would work. Would there be an "Etymology 1" heading, for example, and then later a further "Etymology" heading within the "Etymology 1" section? Having said that, I essentially agree that etymolgies should come after definitions. More generally, I think there is very considerable further scope for improvement in Wiktionary page design, so as to make it more attractive and appealing to users. 109.153.244.85 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree the definition should probably come first, as it simply has to be the most important thing for most dictionary users. It's not just online dictionaries that put def before ety, either. Many put the pronunciation before the def, but they don't have a big subtitled section for it! Equinox 20:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      I like the etymology-first presentation when the etymology section is short, but we don't seem to be getting very far in limiting its use of scarce screen space that users see first. Cognates are only part of the problem. Many etymologies are just verbose. An alternative to reordering sections would be to have the Etymology sections collapsed in their entirety, with a terse etymology appearing in the show/hide bars such as are produced by {{rel-top}} DCDuring TALK 21:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      That's just a workaround at best. First we decide to put it first, then we decide that we don't want it there and hide it? We should just move it elsewhere completely. —CodeCat 21:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      You can be dismissive as a rhetorical tactic, but I thought it was a way of having one's cake (terse etymology visibly organizing the entry) and eating it too (drastically reducing the space taken by the worst-offending lengthy etymologies). DCDuring TALK 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Index namespace[edit]

I think we should either keep the indexes updated, or completely delete them. It is confusing to our readers to have seriously out-of-date indexes. --WikiTiki89 19:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, our lemma categories have replaced these. —CodeCat 19:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Which is why I favor the latter option (i.e. deleting them). --WikiTiki89 19:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Large categories are pretty hideous to navigate through, though. The lemma categories should be as easy to browse as the pages of a real dictionary. —CodeCat 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know why they make the categories so difficult. On all other pages (history, watchlist, etc.), you can adjust how many entries you see on the screen and skip multiple pages or to a particular page number; but in categories, the number is fixed to 200 and you can only move forward or backward one page at a time. We need to complain harder to the devs about this. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
What about cattoc's? Like here Category:English lemmas or here (with just alphabet which I think is enough) Category:Latvian lemmas.
Agreed on "unwieldiness" of browsing cats. There've been times where I've been "shopping" for an audio file to be used in wiki to illustrate a particular sound and the fact that the only thing for navigation that I have is "Next 200" is very inconvenient, cattoc makes this much more convenient.
Also agree about indices, I understand some people have invested time (at some distant point in the past) in maintaining them but the whole point escapes me. Something like that should always be auto-updated (like categories are.) The indices, imo, should be replaced with lemma cats with cattocs. It probably takes a couple minutes of work to add this cattoc but then there could simply be a drive "want your pet language featured in the indices box on the first page? Well, then go and make a cattoc for an alphabetical index of its lemma cat." Neitrāls vārds (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
We do have "TOC"s in the lemma categories, as you have already pointed out. But having both that and more navigable pages would be much better. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there any languages for which the Index is satisfactorily updated? In other words: can we delete the whole Index namespace at once or are there any languages that should be kept? "Chinese radical" index is one that comes to mind since it is different from the rest - it is not a list of Chinese words but a (large) list of Chinese characters. I don't have the ability to tell if it's accurate, of good quality, complete or near completion. Also, what about proto-language indices like Index:Proto-Indo-European/d? Can those be deleted too? --Daniel 00:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Conrad.Bot. The only languages for which the Index is potentially up to date are those that have not had any new entries since the last time Conrad.Bot updated it (which was May 2, 2012). In other words, if there is such a language, it's rather insignificant. As far as proto-languages, it seems they were updated by a different bot, NadandoBot, which last updated them on September 22, 2012, but I see no reason they should be treated any differently; they have lemma categories just like any other language. Any valid red links can be collected on a requests page. --WikiTiki89 20:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good enough to me. Since deleting the whole index (or most of it minus Chinese radical, I guess; I don't know if it could be replaced by categories, but it seems it hasn't) is a major project, if it's alright I'm thinking of creating a vote for it sometime in the new few days. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. --WikiTiki89 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that I am the only one who wants to keep the Index namespace. There are so many talented editors here who could update Conrad's code and run it as bot a couple of times a year. Reasons to keep (I am repeating what I said elsewhere):
  1. an audio link if there is an audio
  2. the part of speech
  3. asterisks linking back to the English entries where translations were added
  4. red-link entries that were added to translations but not created yet
  5. orange-link entries that were added to translations but the FL section is missing on the entry page
  6. it is also an excellent tool for troubleshooting and maintenance, showing mistranslations and incorrect entries
  7. it is more compact than the lemma category (a full-size window can show even 5 columns and all this extra information)
  8. it is easier to navigate than the lemma category (this was also mentioned by others above)
Would you all please reconsider? --Panda10 (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Your reasons for keeping the Index sound good, but IMO the great problem is how the Index is out of date with nobody yet to update it. I propose carrying on with the project of deleting most of the Index namespace, while we could mention on the vote that this is without prejudice; that people are encouraged to "update Conrad's code and run it as bot a couple of times a year." in case someone volunteers to do so. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:archive-top[edit]

Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2015/June#Template:archive-top

The terms "passed" and "failed" are not very clear when it comes to RFD/RFDO. It would be clearer to use "kept" and "deleted". However, for RFV, it does make more sense to use "passed" and "failed". Therefore I would like to propose that we change both the displayed text and the template parameter from "passed"/"failed" to "kept"/"deleted" for and only for archives of RFD/RFDO discussions. The downside would be that it would complicate the template logic and possibly confuse the users of the template to have different sets of values for RFD/RFDO and RFV. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I will just point out that you do not even have to think about such inane details if you just use the archiving script I wrote. Which archives better that you ever could manually. Keφr 18:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kephir: Using "passed" and "failed" for RFD/RFDO archives is still confusing to the readers of the archive, regardless of how it was archived. Has it failed to be deleted, or has it failed to be kept? --WikiTiki89 18:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I surmise that readers of the archive read it in page view mode, not directly as wikitext. I have no idea how a detail they are not even aware of could confuse them. Keφr 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process." Is that not the text they would see? --WikiTiki89 19:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that is a completely different issue from what template parameters trigger this text. Keφr 19:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe I said that this concerns "both the displayed text and the template parameter". --WikiTiki89 19:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to change the text, just do it. (I was not particularly happy about some phrasing there anyway.) Keφr 19:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I want to change both, which is why I started this discussion to get consensus. I realize that we would need a bot run and you would have to change your aWa tool, but that shouldn't be too hard. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You can change the template in ways that do not break existing uses. Using bots is unnecessary in that case. Keφr 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes you can. But then people will continue to use what they see. Not everybody uses your aWa tool. --WikiTiki89 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not follow. What is wrong with it? Keφr 20:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
In addition to what I've already mentioned, to maintain consistency between entered content and displayed content. --WikiTiki89 20:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to adjust the blurb or add aliases for parameter values, I have little against it, but I think changing existing usage is too much hassle for no benefit. I am fine with current parameter names. And people who are such masochists that they would want to use the template manually should look up its documentation. Keφr 20:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
So hypothetically, if it didn't take any hassle at all, what would the ideal parameters be? --WikiTiki89 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"0" and "1". Short, sweet and to the point. Keφr 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Not "f" and "j", so that you don't have to move your fingers?</sarcasm> You're forgetting that people read code. This is why people do #define TRUE 1 and #define FALSE 0 in C, so that they can type "TRUE" and "FALSE", even though just using "1" and "0" would be much faster. --WikiTiki89 21:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, you already have to move your fingers to type the pipe character; if you take that into account, you may try "\" and "]". However, "0" and "1" offer a nice balance between readability and brevity. They are also much more universal; they would be just as fit when someone proposes to reword the displayed text. Keφr 09:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support adding "kept" and "deleted" as parameters in one way or another: My preference would be to have "kept" and "deleted" as additional parameters that are supported when somebody enters "kept" or "deleted" where they would normally enter "passed" or "failed". Purplebackpack89 18:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would still like to see the ability to close discussions as "RFD kept" rather than "RFD passed" in archive-top template. That is, I want to be able to enter {{archive-top|rfd|kept}} and {{archive-top|rfd|deleted}}. I don't want to use AWA tool to archive discussions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that tool's too complex for most editors, and there's not really any harm in keeping templates that aWa mimics. Purplebackpack89 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Unicode subpages no longer have article links[edit]

Due to edits by User:Kephir at Module:character info and Module:character list, redlinks (and also regular links) are no longer showing up at Appendix:Unicode. I don't recall such an action being discussed earlier anywhere in the discussion rooms, so I'm bringing it up here since I'm just curious as to what is going on. Bumm13 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Deprecated German spellings[edit]

Deprecated in 1996

In case of spellings that were deprecated in 1996 it's kind of easy to see what they are, even though they were inconsistently labeled as obsolete, dated, nonstandard or alternative forms here.

  • obsolete: obsolete here at WT is a stronger term than archaic and forms deprecated in 1996 aren't even archaic. Thus: obsolete doesn't fit.
  • dated: many (or even all?) forms which were in use before 1996 are still in use - though maybe rather by older than younger people and also being rarer now than they were years ago. Thus: dated doesn't fit.
  • nonstandard: Appendix:Glossary#nonstandard: "Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers."
    • There were many surveys that showed that a majority is against the reform, so it's doubtful that deprecated spellings aren't "accepted by the majority of its speakers", even though deprecated spellings became rarer and might and at least sometimes do count as errors in schools.
    • In many cases many people don't know which form is correct accourding to the spelling reform of 1996 (2004, 2006, 2011) anyway. This leads to hypercorrections such as "ausser" and "Fussball", and to the use of deprecated forms which aren't recognised as deprecated or are used anyway (and thus most likely aren't nonstandard; e.g. geschrieen).
    • Thus: nonstandard is doubtful or doesn't fit.
  • alternative: If a form is attestable even after the reform and when there is the "the spelling became deprecated" note, this should be fine. At least it's more fitting than the other labels.
  • Another alternative label: instead of nonstandard (which is doubtful) and alternative (which might be "too neutral"), something like "unofficial" (German: nichtamtlich) might be better. The term isn't doubtful (in contrary to "nonstandard") and is also neutral/describing (and not prescribing like a misuse of "obsolete" or (sometimes) "nonstandard"), but might be more precise (than just "alternative").
Deprecated in 1902

ATM there's no entry which says that a spelling was deprecated in 1902, but anyway:

  • Forms that were deprecated in 1902 most likely aren't in use anymore and thus aren't attestable for the 21st century. Thus it shouldn't be "alternative form" or "nonstandard form".
  • Usually forms deprecated in 1902 are easy to understand (e.g. compare Thür and Tür). Thus "dated" should be more fitting than "archaic" or "obsolete".
So

Questions:

  • How about labeling forms deprecated in 1996 as "unofficial"?
  • How should words deprecated in 1902 be labeled?

-93.196.234.171 10:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My two cents. I don't speak or edit in German, but Portuguese has similar issues. Proposal:
Re labels: at Wiktionary talk:About_German#pre-1996_spellings_are_.22_forms_of.22_current_spellings, we worked out to use Template:de-superseded spelling of (or Template:superseded spelling of if it would be feasible to greatly expand its functionality without making it prohibitively expensive for the servers and for users who have to add parameters and have the template know that the German spelling reform of 1996 is not the same as the Foobarese spelling reform of 1996). That template handles the variable labelling of things, based on the age of the reform that deprecated them, as "superseded", "obsolete", etc. Re categories, Daniel's basic suggestion is good (precise category names TBD); we do already have Category:German words affected by 1996 spelling reform. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding that template:
  • And what is with re-superseeded spellings, when one spelling superseeded another and then got superseeded by the former spelling, like daß/dass became daß in 1901 and then officially dass in 1996? Thus, "dass" is a superseeded spelling of "daß" (as of 1901-1996), but then "daß" is a superseeded spelling of "dass" (as of 1996). Not to mention that "dass" was deprecated between 1901-1996 is no solution, as this would be a lack of infomation and in a way it would also be non-neutral.
  • "Obsolete spelling [...] deprecated in [...] 1901." -- Please read Appendix:Glossary#obsolete: "No longer in use, and no longer likely to be understood." The first part is true (at least in case of dropped "h" like in "Thür"), but the second part is not. "Thür" is likely to be understood as it looks pretty much like "Tür". Thus, as the definition in the glossary uses an "and" and not an "or", "obsolete" doesn't fit - and maybe it even is some kind of false friend of German "obsolet" in the sense of "unneeded". Even spellings which came out of use in the 17th century aren't always obsolete - e.g. uncapitalised words are likely to be understood.
  • The "First Orthographic Conference" failed, so it doesn't make sense to say that a word was "deprecated in the First Orthographic Conference".
  • "1600s" is 1600-1609, which is something different then "16th century" which is 1601-1700 - so the parameters should rather be just "1700", "1800" (like in "till 1700", "till 1800").
91.63.247.10 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
1600-1700 is the 17th century. Also, how about the label 'wrong'? I don't see a need to avoid prescriptivism when the there is a legal prescription. The only way the German orthography could be even more prescriptivist was if the state put fines on media for misspelling words. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The German language is not owned by the country of Germany. Wiktionary mentions prescriptions because they are often relevant, but does not itself prescribe. And forgive me if I am wrong, but there are people even in Germany who categorically refuse to follow the orthographic reforms; Wiktionary is not here to decide whether these people are right or wrong. --WikiTiki89 20:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
As such, shouldn't be marking these clearly by what orthographic prescriptions they follow or don't, and ignore tags like dated until they're really necessary?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I feel that dated refers more to words that have naturally fallen out of use, rather than those that were banned. --WikiTiki89 22:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not 100% correct to say that the German language is not owned by the country of Germany, at least in the field of orthography. (As for pronunciation standards: God, no.) Germany, Switzerland, Luxemburg, and I believe Liechtenstein too, have declared the Duden as the legally binding institution for their orthographies. The Duden is based in Germany and its decisions are mainly influenced by discussions within German society and politics. I wouldn't be surprised if its editorial and panel were exclusively German as well. The legal situation is the same in Austria, with their home-based Austrian Dictionary being the entity entitled to decide the rules. Point I want to make is that they're all equally prescriptive. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but not every German writer in the world lives in the countries you mentioned. And not every German writer that does live in the countries you mentioned actually follows the legally prescribed rules. Should we also say that in the Persian language, any anti-Iranian propaganda is grammatically incorrect? --WikiTiki89 14:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Depends, is there an authority with any sort of binding power regulating grammar, rather than content, in such a way that anti-Iranian propaganda would automatically fail its requirements? If so, yes. Don't try to be thick on purpose just for political reasons. We do have the label 'misspelling' in English where there is no regulation whatso-fucking-ever and suddenly we're having an argument how labeling something as a misspelling is unacceptable for a language for which every country who has it as a national language has a law regulating its spelling, and all on one based on the same source? Really? Because if there are no misspellings, then we have to include a lot of stuff. I might author a German book entirely in a mixture of runes and devanagari and enter every single one of the words I used here. Descriptivist dictionary ho! Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So if there were such an authority in Iran, then you think Wiktionary should follow it as well? Wiktionary is not supposed to take sides—any sides. Wiktionary is only supposed to describe the existing situation. I would have no problem saying "now considered incorrect by Duden" with a link to an appendix page explaining how authoritative Duden is. But we should definitely not mark something as simply "wrong", because that implies Wiktionary supports that view and Wiktionary does not support any views. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The existing situation is that virtually every German speaker considers non-Duden spellings as wrong. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's see some evidence of that. I can find plenty of Google Books hits for daß from well after the reform. --WikiTiki89 16:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you intended to link me, but I looked at the first twelve pages of the link you gave. The overwhelming majority of hits are from the 18th century, another fair share is from even before that and the two or so hits which are post 1996 are at reprints of pre-reform texts. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It was supposed to show you hits from 2005 and later. Some of them are reprints, but it seems to me that some of them are not; although I may be wrong. --WikiTiki89 20:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I opened the link in another browser and looked over the first ten pages. They mainly are two things: Unedited reprints of older textbooks and books which quote historical writings. There are 5 genuinely new books which use 'daß', but two are false entries in in Google, where the actual book cover uses 'dass', which serves us as a warning for looking twice. So in the small sample survey I did in that link, new books with old spellings make up 3%. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
re "'1600s' is 1600-1609" = no, 1600s is 1600-1699 in most contexts in English.
As I noted on WT:T:ADE, "no longer likely to be understood" only applies to words; for spellings, the concern is only whether or not they are still in use. Spellings which fell out of use more than a century ago are obsolete unless they are still used for effect, in which case they are archaic.
- -sche (discuss) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Spellings deprecated by a regulatory authority but still in widespread use are alternative spellings. They are neither non-standard, nor obsolete, nor misspellings, nor wrong. The English Wiktionary, being a descriptivist dictionary, does not label entries or spellings as "wrong" based on stipulations of regulatory authorities. this revision of Eßstäbchen looks good to me: it ranks the spelling as alternative but informs the reader via a usage note that the spelling was deprecated. That is the accurate, informative reporting to the reader that we should strive for. We should not prescribe, but there is no need for us to omit the fact that an authority has deprecated the spelling, since many a reader wishes to know that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that "usage note" is too heavy weight for this. We could say "1902 Duden standard version (deprecated by 1996 standard) of ..."? That seems clunky, but short of notation more appropriate for a German-language dictionary, I'm not sure how to compress it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but if a spelling which is 1. virtually not used and 2. not part of the official standard of literally every country which uses that language, is not fitting the term non-standard for you, you might need to get a new dictionary since you seem to have grabbed an edition printed in w:Bizarro World. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As for the above claim that certains spellings are "vitually not used", here is Google Ngram Viewer in German corpus, for Eßstäbchen, Essstäbchen, going to 2008. What I see there leads me to report that "Eßstäbchen" is an alternative spelling that still finds plenty of use. On another note, my understanding of the phrase "non-standard spelling" is not as "not fitting a prescriptive, stipulated standard" but rather "very rare, causing surprise to native speakers when seen in print". I oppose attempts to label spellings not fitting prescriptive standards as "non-standard". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
What's the advantage in going all judgmental and calling it non-standard instead of correctly stating which standards it's a part of? Besides being prescriptive, it's misleading to readers to have spellings used in 1965 labeled "non-standard", as if the author was a bad speller or the editor incompetent, instead of labeling it not conformant to the 1995 standard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that what you're thinking of is what we already have, Template:de-superseded spelling of (which was indeed designed to, among other things, obviate/replace usage notes and provide descriptive language on the sense line). - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In Brennessel, the template produces this: "Former spelling of Brennnessel which was deprecated in the spelling reform (Rechtschreibreform) of 1996." That seems slightly misleading since the spelling is not so much former as alternative; it is not "former" because it is still in use, and furthermore, because it is still a spelling; if something is "former X", it means it is "no longer X", so "former spelling" suggests "it used to be a spelling but is no more". For brevity and accuracy, the template should IMHO better produce "Alternative spelling of Brennnessel deprecated in the spelling reform of 1996.", having changed "former" to "alternative" and having dropped "which was" and "(Rechtschreibreform)" for brevity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A concern with labelling Foobar an "alternative spelling of Fubar deprecated in the spelling reform of 1996" is that it could be interpreted as saying that Foobar used to be an alternative spelling of Fubar (i.e. that both Foobar and Fubar were standard) until Foobar was deprecated in 1996, leaving only Fubar. This is actually the case with some words, e.g. geschrieen (both geschrieen and geschrien were standard before 1996, now only geschrien is). Just "spelling of Fubar which was deprecated in the spelling reform of 1996" ("which was" strikes me as necessary for clarity, especially if we drop the adjective) is one idea, but it fails to note that the spellings were formerly standard. Hmm... I have changed the wording to "Formerly standard spelling of Fubar which was deprecated in the spelling reform (Rechtschreibreform) of 1996." - -sche (discuss) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: By my lights, the word "standard" should not appear anywhere in the output of the template, whether as "standard", "non-standard" or the like. Put differently, "standard" is not a lexicographical category, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I notice that the argument with me is beginning to turn in circles, so I'll make my final case, in order to not hinder the progress of the discussion. There is only one standard. Technically, there are two standards, Austrian Dictionary and Duden, but I can't think of anything where they would diverge in terms of spelling. Then there are a zillion reprints of university textbooks, for which it is neither necessary nor cost efficient to revise their spelling, and texts quoting works with older spellings, which fuck with robots like Google, and then you get a preciously scare group of ultraconservatives who do consciously not follow the reform. The official standard isn't some fringe idea, it's what defines what people perceive as wrong and right. The ß you can get past people as an odd quirk, but omitting an N in Brennnessel will not be considered as a dated alternative, it will be perceived as a mistake by something between virtually and literally everyone. I know it's not the best argument, but I have to say it once, because it keeps popping up in my mind: I can't help but feel that the local foreigners have a wrong impression of how the average and absolutely crushing majority of German speakers see the reform. (They don't care. The state said 'this is correct now' and they accept that as the new given.) It might not be perfectly clear why this bothers me so much, so let me voice why I'm so irked by this debate: I am of the honest and stern conviction that we do a disservice to our users if do not abundantly clearly tell them that these spellings are not equal to the official spellings. 'Alternative' doesn't cut it. The very least we can do is 'proscribed', personally, I'd move for 'misspelling'. If you believe that such a thing as a 'misspelling' does exist as a concept, this is it. Brennessel, adultry, who are we to judge? My answer to that is: We're a dictionary, not a copy shop. We don't embezzle context information. Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you express that in some way that's not so dated? Like a Youtube video, or Twitter?
When B. F. J. Scheller published their Die amerikanische Brennessel, they correctly spelled the title. No force in heaven or on Earth can turn back the hands of time and make that a misspelling. Any dictionary that presumes to cover the totality of cited human writing like Wiktionary does would fail if it were to mark a word that was correctly spelled as a misspelling because some reform one hundred years later presumed to make it so. Even if there is but one standard today, it differs from the standard then.
I have no clue what you mean by "we don't embezzle context information." It is entirely appropriate for a dictionary to clearly state what standards spellings adhere to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for quotations[edit]

From time to time I come across notes like "Can we find and add a quotation of <author's name> to this entry?" I am curious about these since there is no explanation (and certainly no obvious reason) why some seemingly random author should be so important for some particular word sense. And, if there is a good reason, i.e. the editor knew of a particularly pertinent quote, then why didn't the editor just add it? I would be interested to know more about the reason for these notes. 217.44.208.136 23:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Webster 1913 often cited authors who used a word, but didn't give the citation; we have copied these while importing the Webster data, because sometimes there are very few authors who ever used a rare word. Also, sometimes we're too busy to fill out the entire entry at the time. Equinox 00:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
For further background, Webster 1913 is a core source of Wiktionary entries, being out of copyright and available in readily usable form. Also, it is simply a lot of work to add citations. It would take at least 1,000 hours for one person to add just the citations marked with the template {{rfquotek}}, assuming they can manage 10-11 per hour. Try adding just one. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I see, thanks for info. 217.44.208.136 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Format of definitions[edit]

I think it looks messy that some definitions start with a capital letter and end with a full stop, while others don't. The page Wiktionary:Entry layout explained says "Each definition may be treated as a sentence: beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop." This seems undesirably vague to me. Is there a reason why "may" is not "should"? Another slightly messy inconsistency is that some verb definitions begin with the infinitive marker "to", while others do not. Apologies if I missed it, but I don't see any instruction about this on the "Entry layout explained" page. I think this should be covered. 217.44.208.136 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A definition consisting of a single capitalised word followed by a full stop looks silly. One word doesn't make a sentence. —CodeCat 01:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(Almost) no definitions are grammatically full sentences. It doesn't make any difference in that respect whether a noun phrase, for example, is one word or twenty. 217.44.208.136 01:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
How do other dictionaries do it? —CodeCat 01:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can see as well as me that they vary. I should say that I am not especially certain that the "sentence" format is the best. I think the main thing is that all entries should be consistent. If you can find a dictionary that has inconsistency like Wiktionary then that would be more interesting. 217.44.208.136 01:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
We've sought consistency and have not achieved it. Non-English entries are overwhelmingly lower case without period. English entries are mostly upper case with period. Other formats exist but tend to be converted to the dominant format for English or FLs. DCDuring TALK 01:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you know offhand what the barrier(s) to achieving consistency are/were? 217.44.208.136 01:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Adherents of one or the other option being vehemently against codifying anything but their preference, and the sheer magnitude of work required to synchronize millions of entries that are constantly being edited by an unknown number of people at all hours of the day and night. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The inconsistency between English and FLs is largely attributable to the fact that English definitions tend to be longer, closer to full sentences in length if not structure. (How could a substitutable definition of anything other than a sentence be a sentence?) FL definitions are most frequently a single English word (whether or not that should be the case), sometimes with a disambiguating gloss, for polysemic words (and homonyms). Inconsistency within English is due to some contributors having disagreed with me. DCDuring TALK 04:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether there is any appetite to look at this again with a view to settling on a single format, at least for English. It's not so bad if separate foreign-language sections have different formats from English, but when adjacent English definitions are formatted differently, the effect is, as I say, messy. It does not look designed or intentional, but just like different people are doing different things at random. Even if exact criteria were developed for choosing one format over the other, say based on length, I think that for ordinary readers there would always be an arbitrary-seeming cutoff point at which one would ask "Why are these two formatted differently?" I do not agree that hope of standardisation should be abandoned just because Wiktionary is user-editable. Sure, people may not follow standards, and things may have to be corrected, and they may go uncorrected for a long time, but the same is true of any layout or style requirement. If you go down that route you might as well give up on the whole of "Wiktionary:Entry layout explained". By the way, does anyone have a view on my other point about use of "to" in verb definitions? 217.44.208.136 11:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I like the use of to in English verb definitions as it accelerates and confirms the recognition that the definition is for a verb. On mobile screens and for longer definitions the PoS heading may not be visible. For a non-native speaker especially the possibility that a defining word is a verb and has a homonym that is of another part of speech adds to the potential for confusing, even ambiguous definitions. DCDuring TALK 12:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It does look messy when there's inconsistency, but for the most part, the definitions are capitalized and punctuated for English words, and not for non-English words. I have been taking care of inconsistencies as I come across them (that goes for the occasional headers that are the wrong sizes). In fact, those little inconsistencies are what started me editing Wiktionary not too long ago, since they were bugging me. I definitely think we should strive for consistency in every way possible. JodianWarrior (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
We do have some more important problems, like missing definitions, wording of a definition of a part of speech that makes it seem like another part of speech, confusing order of definitions, etc., but working on format is a great way to get exposure to the content of a lot of definitions. By doing so one can pick up prevailing good (and not so good) practice in definitions and other parts of entries. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange tables in Korean entries[edit]

I think that these need to be removed and the "orthoepy" sent to ko-pron. 64.40.43.48 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Words used "in dialects, including A, B, C"[edit]

Quite a few entries use the labels "dialectal", "dialect" and "dialects". This is allowable, because sometimes a user may not know which dialects a word is used in. But we should always attempt to be more specific, IMO. I'd like to make people aware of the label "including", which allows listing dialects in a way that makes clear the list isn't exhaustive. E.g. in the entry favor: {{lb|en|transitive|in|_|dialects|including|Southern US|and|Cajun}}(transitive, in dialects, including Southern US and Louisiana). (I can also find evidence that the sense was used in British dialects a century ago; I don't know whether it still is or not.) - -sche (discuss) 00:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Flash card function for language learning publicly requested[edit]

In this blog article the author suggests the desirability of having the Wiktionaries offer a flash-card like system for learning African languages. The advantage of hosting such a system is that it would offer the opportunity for teachers or advocates of the language to add entries to the languages of interest to them to achieve sufficient language coverage to make the effort worthwhile. This came up on the Wiktionary-l mailing list, so we should try to make as constructive response as possible. DCDuring TALK 18:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been extracting flashcard files (for Anki et al.) from the dumps for personal use for several years (one component of a language-learning program that has helped me earn a tidy little set of ATA certifications). It would be fairly trivial to make such files available on a regular basis for any given set of languages. -- Visviva (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the blog author and the fellow who put it on the mailing list may be looking for more. Actually there must be good, free web-based software or free applications that could run this. Perhaps we could assemble a list with links and select words and (god help me) phrases suitable for basic word and phrasebook flashcards. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, Anki is open source and has web-based, desktop and app versions. The author's idea of a "flashcard mode" for Special:RandomInCategory is interesting (and could be accomplished with some clever JavaScript, I think), and could have some real pedagogical value if combined with a "basic words" category (rather than an "all lemmas" category), but it would still be a pretty poor substitute for a proper spaced-repetition flashcard program. -- Visviva (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The common element is the core list of words for all languages and some target-language-specific words. I wish I could do it. All I'd need is the talent. Maybe some false friends, though that depends of both target and native language. The common element just seems like a good idea. There are the Swadesh lists, but we have to add some more contemporary material. I liked the spirit and tone of the original Gimmick series. Anyway, we can take requests if we want. I suppose this needs to start with just one or a few languages. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason why particularly African languages would lend themselves better to flash cards? But in all seriousness, this is a good idea, but do we have anyone willing to do anything about it? --WikiTiki89 21:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you thinking about the flashcard mode in JS or something? DCDuring TALK 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems like a grant-worthy project for the right talent and proposal. MWF would probably support it. That's probably what the fellow who put it on the Wiktionary list was thinking. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


  • FWIW, I just wrote User:Dixtosa/history.js that keeps track of searched terms in specified languages (you need to override historyjsIncludeLanguages variable). Then on your history page (username+/history, e.g. User:Dixtosa/history) you can view and manage (like deleting and deleting and even deleting) all the terms and all the targeted languages generated by JS. --Dixtosa (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Poll: Replace the image in the entry "penis"[edit]

Proposal: Replace the image in the entry "penis".
Current image: File:Labelled flaccid penis.jpg (explicit picture of a penis)
Proposed image: File:Illu repdt male erect.jpg (cross-section drawing of a penis)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel 00:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems obvious. -- Visviva (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know why it has to be the erect one? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support As long as a guideline like Wiktionary:Votes/2015-06/Collapsing offensive images is not in effect, I think supporting this replacement is the best way to go. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That's a lousy drawing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Ideas for alternate replacements are welcome. --Daniel 13:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I oppose both images of these Chinese penises. We should replace both with a picture of a more realistic, bigger penis. --Vahag (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I support replacement with a drawing in principle, but as for the proposed medical drawing, I wonder whether I would recognize it to be a drawing of penis if I did not already know it was one. I am not sure the proposed edit is really an improvement. I collected some drawings at Commons:Human penis drawing. At the very least, File:Illu repdt male.jpg seems better to me, but I still wish we would have a much nicer drawing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I'm not bothered by the current image, but if we do switch to a drawing, I'd suggest one of File:Penis location.jpg, File:Sketch of a flaccid penis.png, or File:Sketch of a human penis.png. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Related discussions:

As an aside: If there are any other explicit pictures in any language, I would like to know. The entry masturbation had an explicit animated gif from May to June 2015, it does not have any image at the moment. --Daniel 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There is one at ძუძუ ('female breast'). --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Add breast to the list. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the non-English entries have such images. --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of the drawing I just placed at ძუძუ? I wish I could find a nicer one, though. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason this needs to be in the Beer Parlour? It's discussing one entry and so should be in the Tea Room. --WikiTiki89 17:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I just forgot about TR. Maybe my brain went ou autopilot and subsconsciouly considered this as a follow-up to the other BP discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
For the moment I am replacing the current image with File:Penis location.jpg. After 7 days, poll results are technically 4-1-3 with the majority of voters supporting the proposal. Still, a number of people disapprove of the specific proposed image. File:Penis location.jpg was among Angr (talkcontribs)'s suggestions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Presentation of Katharevousa Greek in en:Wiktionary.[edit]

I currently treat Katharevousa as shown here, entering it as an alternative form of the Standard Modern Greek one. Where an SMG form does not exist I would define it thus:

1. (Katharevousa) suitable translation

Does this seem the appropriate treatment. Are there better, different examples in other languages?

(@Chuck Entz, @Xoristzatziki, @Flyax, @Eipnvn, @Angr)  — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That looks like a good way to do it to me. See b́edro for an example of how I treated an obsolete word whose modern spelling is unattested. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two distinct "areas": "polytonic orthography" is the one and the other is "Katharevousa". "Katharevousa" has only "polytonic orthography" but "Demotic Greek" (official language of Greece since 1976) was also printed in "polytonic orthography" (officially until 1982). But there are polytonic forms that belong purely to "Demotic Greek" (βασιληᾶς or βασιλιᾶς). Also "Demotic Greek" is not a "descendant" of "Katharevousa". But there are many words created (most translated or transliterated) during the period where "Katharevousa" was official language and thus can be somehow stated that come from "Katharevousa". IMHO "Katharevousa" should be used only if form has only "polytonic orthography" and the printed word cannot be treated as a polytonic form of a word in use. Also "Katharevousa" is far more distinguished by her own set of grammatical and syntactical rules which cannot be "presented" in individual lemmas. (about the above mentioned example: Ἀριθμοί is the polytonic form of Αριθμοί which, in turn, comes from Ancient Greek Ἀριθμοί and not from "Katharevousa"). --Xoristzatziki (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

As a start, and by way of suggestion, I have made some changes to Αριθμοί and Ἀριθμοί. A suggested category might be Category:Polytonic Greek. Are there any views on whether "Polytonic spelling of" might be better than "Polytonic form of"?   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 10:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

eye dialect ing[edit]

I'm curious about the policy on eye dialect spellings of ing verbs in English. For example we have walkin' but not buyin'. AFAICT none of the eye dialect spellings are cited. Is there a special policy on when to include them? Just to pick an obscure verb, with a little casual googling I found a use for transmogrifyin' -- just one, but if I could find one barely looking, I bet there are more out there. Do we make pages for every English verb where someone has written it like that enough times to meet CFI? Are we actually required to find examples? There are no examples for any eye dialect words I've checked including some ones I'd have been surprising to find in writing, like agonizin' and considerin' (neither of which have any easy to find results on Google Books). Just curious if this has been discussed, I don't plan on mass-making these pages or nominating them for deletion or anything like that. WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally consider them less useful than "common misspellings", as the general rule of dropping the "g" becomes obvious to a language learner rather quickly. We are not very good at agreeing on quantitative criteria for any class of inclusion/exclusion decisions, so the motivation and opinion of contributors, subject to the RfV process, governs, leading to an unsystematic result. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, they're includable if they meet CFI: at least three uses in independent, permanently archived sources, spanning more than a year. For most verbs it shouldn't be difficult to find usage, considering how widespread such forms are in reported speech. But they're not eye dialect and shouldn't be labeled as such; they should be labeled {{nonstandard form of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
In an old discussion, we sorta decided to include them like any other word: any that meets our attestation requirement is in; any that doesn't is out. Our discussions since have followed that rule AFAICT. (And I agree with it, personally, fwiw.) However, I've found one discussion that did not apply that rule to multi-word terms, preferring instead to have only the single-word g-less term and the g-full phrase.​—msh210 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

appendices[edit]

Category:Appendices and Category:English glossaries are inconsistently formatted and disorganized. Is there a policy on how to handle these pages? I was thinking about trying to clean things up over there, can't find any guidelines or even significant discussion about it. WurdSnatcher (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's been any major discussions about appendices.
Personally, I can think of some guidelines I've been applying to them when possible:
--Daniel 06:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Using BBC Voices as a source[edit]

A few years ago, the BBC organized a large series of conversations between members of the public across the country about their dialects/accents. This information is now maintained by the British Library (so we can assume it's permanently archived) and although the files don't have full transcripts (just summaries), it's still a useful source for a lot of terms that are difficult to archive. To pick a random example, several participants in the Hartlepool conversation use the word cuddy-wifter/cuddywifter, which is difficult to cite even in its standard meaning of "left-handed person" (only one non-mention on Google Books), but as comes out in the course of the chat it has an additional meaning on Teesside of "Catholic". Given that a lot of the problems that we have with collecting dialectal terms is that they are often used in speech but seldom written down, can we use this archive as a citation? Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(ETA: the recordings made in Scotland are fully transcripted, and can be searched here) Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, we have chosen not to accept voice recordings as sources, even though there are plenty of movies, music, and other media containing voice recordings that are durably archived. However, the transcripts can probably count as written sources. --WikiTiki89 11:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The untranscripted recordings afford an opportunity to cite pronunciations, thereby upgrading the objectivity of our pronunciations. Is there any kind of index to the untranscripted recordings to help one find where a particular word is pronounced? DCDuring TALK 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Some (not all) have been looked over by linguists who've indentified the phonemes the speakers used. For example, here's the analysis of the Birkenhead recording, which has some snippets with interesting pronunciations highlighted and transcribed (very closely) with IPA. For example: "I was hung-over yesterday [jɛstədᶻi] so (yeah) and then I got a phone call [fʌʊŋkˣɔːɫ] from the college [kˣɒləʤ] saying, “oh you’re in an interview [ɪntsəvjuː] tomorrow” [tsəmɒɾʌʊ] and I was like, [laɪkˣ] “what what about?”" (incidentally, I think the [ts]s in that quote are typos for [tˢ]). There's also more general notation of standard phonemes - it notes that the FOOT vowel is [ʊ], that there's a lot of H-dropping, etc. I don't think there's a proper archive - the best way to find a word is probably to do a Google search of the http://sounds.bl.uk/ domain and try your luck. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps they really were saying [ts] rather than [tˢ]. You'd have to listen to the recording. --WikiTiki89 16:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Re "we have chosen not to accept voice recordings as sources": on the contrary, WT:CFI explicitly says "Other recorded media such as audio and video are also acceptable, provided they are of verifiable origin and are durably archived". Libraries often archive copies of CDs and DVDs (songs and movies), and several of our entries cite songs and movies as a result. There was some discussion of the subject in in May 2012, where it was pointed out that using only audio citations of a term we can't be sure of the spelling of would be problematic, but audio citations can be used in conjunction with written citation (as on Qapla') or (as Chuck put it) "where only one spelling is possible and the audio or video confirms usage", such as (as Ruakh put it) when "we often RFV a specific sense of a term, or an idiomatic expression whose component words are clear. In both of these cases, it can sometimes be quite clear what the spelling is." - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Your right. I really should replace my brain with a RAID array. --WikiTiki89 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

are religions nouns or proper nouns?[edit]

It seems we are not consistent on this on Wiktionary.
Categorised as nouns: Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Druidry, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Taoism
Categorised as proper nouns: Cao Dai, Jainism, Luciferianism, Raëlism, Rastafarianism, Shinto, Spiritism, Thelema, Wicca, Zoroastrianism
What do we do about this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What other dictionaries distinguish proper nouns from common nouns and could offer us guidance? I recall from discussions of personal names and some other words that many other dictionaries don't distinguish proper from common nouns, and a surprising number of works, even high school and college English textbooks, erroneously equate "proper noun vs common noun" with "capitalized vs lowercase". Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins and Cambridge all have "Buddhism", "Paul" and "White House" all just labelled noun, strongly suggesting that they simply don't distinguish proper from common nouns. (This means that if we could be consistent and correct in our labelling of things as proper vs common nouns, we'd be offering readers something other dictionaries don't!) Our colleagues at de.Wikt, who do distinguish proper from common nouns, have Buddhism as a common noun. - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Other languages do not consider them proper nouns. Same thing with language names and names of days and months. I think English calls them proper nouns only because English capitalizes them. —Stephen (Talk) 07:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
They're proper nouns because there's only one of them. Christianity is a particular set of beliefs; you don't generally speak about a Christianity, or these Christianities. (There are of course cases where "Christianities" is used, but that's true as well for any proper noun, e.g. Elvis Presleys or Elvises or Elvii.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That just means it's uncountable, like iron or physics. —CodeCat 12:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
But you can talk about "this iron and that iron", but not "this Christianity and that Christianity". Perhaps physics should be a proper noun. --WikiTiki89 14:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The grammatical (mostly countable usage, modifiability by adjectives, etc) and orthographic (initial upper case) behavior of the names of religions and other systems of belief is almost identical to that of language names, especially those that are not homonymous with adjectives. We treat all languages as proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Physics can be used in a countable-like way in the phrase "alternative physics" example Not sure if that should be considered an idiom or not. Plenty of hits for "an alternate(ive) physics".WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
We are well aware that nearly any proper noun can be commonized: A Joseph from our Vermont created a new Christianity. But nevertheless the primary usages of these words are as proper nouns. --WikiTiki89 14:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
One can even use a proper noun as a verb: Elvised and Elvising would meet our standards for attestation. Even Christianitied and Christianitying can be found on the web. This kind of use doesn't warrant creating a new PoS section IMO. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikitiki, you can talk about "this or that" Christianity, e.g. "The Christian imprint upon his thought is certainly clearly evident everywhere. But this Christianity is very much modified and very abbreviated." Equinox 17:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
See my subsequent comment: "nearly any proper noun can be commonized". --WikiTiki89 17:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
User:EncycloPetey has a nice, informative subpage about proper nouns where he explains the criteria for classifying a term as a proper noun. He regards that days of the week and names of festivals as borderline cases. But, under his criteria, I'd be inclined to say that names of religions are proper nouns. -- · (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we should abandon proper nouns and treat them as nouns. Grammatical properties, like whether an article precedes a word, are more diverse than proper vs. common. The uniqueness of a referent is a semantic property rather than grammatical and not relevant to part of speech. —CodeCat 16:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been wanting us to abandon the label "proper noun" for ages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The Penguin Writer's Manual (2004, ISBN 0141924829) says this:
A proper noun is a noun that denotes a specific person or thing. It is, to all intents and purposes, a name. [...] Proper nouns include people's first names and surnames, the names of places, times, events, and institutions, and the titles of books, films, etc. They are spelt with an initial capital letter: Sam, Shakespeare, New York, October, Christmas, Christianity, Marxism, and Coronation Street. All nouns that are not proper nouns are known as common nouns. [...]
Apart from being spelt with an initial capital letter, proper nouns have other characteristics that usually distinguish them from common nouns. They do not, generally, have a plural and they are not, usually, preceded by a or an. There is only one Australia; there was only one Genghis Khan. [...] there are many exceptions to [this]. There are occasions when either a specific example or several examples of something denoted by a common noun must be referred to: keeping up with the Joneses; [...] one of the warmest Januaries on record.
The manual then goes on to describe concrete nouns (like table) and abstract nouns (like happiness and unity), countable nouns (table again) and uncountable nouns (mud, foliage), and collective nouns (flock).
- -sche (discuss) 17:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I have yet to find any English grammar reference, of any vintage, that doesn't discuss proper nouns. I suppose that print dictionaries and their online descendants rely on capitalization, the habits and experience of speakers, and common sense to communicate what needs to be communicated to users without wasting space on pages or screens. CGEL handles proper nouns and proper names in less than twenty pages, so it shouldn't be all that difficult for us to interpret the treatment of proper nouns in grammar references to help us differentiate proper from common nouns. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: While there are some borderline cases, such as the names of months and days, most nouns can be readily distinguished as common or proper. The actual criteria and grammar of proper nouns are of far more debate, albeit philosophical. The problem arises in that the names of abstractions and philosophies behave grammatically much like proper nouns. Is socialism a common noun or a proper noun? In older texts, it was capitalized and treated much like Confucianism or Christianity. All three are philosophies. Further, capitalization cannot always be relied upon as a guide, since a number of common nouns and even adjectives are capitalized by virtue of their etymological source (e.g. Welshman, French dressing, African). --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Language labels within Translingual citations[edit]

At the moment we have 30 pages in Category:Translingual citations.

I found them to lack consistency as some of those had only a "English citations" section while others had a "Translingual citations" section without specifying which language is each citation. So I am trying a new format to standardize them all.

See Citations:VL. I separated the citations with language-specific labels within the "Translingual citations of VL" section. I also put them in the respective language categories: Category:English citations, etc. (Maybe something like Category:Translingual citations in English could be an improvement. Still, maybe this level of granularity is not necessary now because there are only few of those citations. If we had hundreds of Translingual citations I might think differently.) I made sure all the 30 pages are following this new format at the moment. I'd like some feedback to see if other people like this format or it could be improved some other way.

Thoughts? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there should be no such thing as a translingual citation. The citation itself is in a language, even if the term it's citing is used cross-language. —CodeCat 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat: I disagree with you on this point. IMO, having "Translingual citations" mirroring the Translingual section of the entry itself is useful because allows us to group different language citations into the same senses. See Citations:(, specifically sense "Punctuation mark: expands a word into another word, inflection or spelling"; it has both Portuguese and English examples. It could have even dozens of languages in the future. It serves for easier comparison of how the same specific sense is used, to check if the Translingual definition is true in all languages. Current sense at ( is inaccurate. It is: "Begins denoting an alternative option for a preceding word. / dog(s)", but there are citations with "colo(u)r" and "(re)criação" (Portuguese). For punctuation marks, one could even argue that one sense of a punctuation mark is truly "Translingual" if it has been attested in multiple languages; ¿ has only the Spanish section. But taxonomic names would be truly Translingual even if attested in only one language, I hope: Citations:Anous stolidus has only one Portuguese citation at the moment. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The Translingual case shows that the naming convention for the citations categories assumes there to be no difference between the language label for the term and the language label for the citation. AFAICT only Translingual violates the assumption, though Translingual itself is a highly heterogeneous collection of ideograms, symbols, taxonomic names, and other scientific names. Arguably it should also include Latin-derived term that appear in medical, legal, even alchemical running text of many languages.
IMO, Any citation pages for Translingual terms should remain where they are and those pages should be categorized as Translingual, eg, the current Category:Translingual citations. IMO, there could certainly be additional categorization into categories for the language in which the translingual term is embedded in each citation. This would enable the citation to be found and reused for citing the terms of its language that it includes and subjected to any language-specific maintenance that might be required.
I don't see any great advantage to having a category like Category:Translingual citations in English rather than two categories: Category:Translingual citations and Category:English citations, but one disadvantage: there is no simple single category that contains all the pages bearing in whatever content namespace that have all the citations in each language. The current search engine makes it easy to search for the intersection of categories. As long as there is no regression of search-engine capability, we should be good for real-time search. We also have the dumps to process should there be regression. DCDuring TALK 00:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I am thinking, maybe I would support that "Latin-derived terms that appear in medical, legal, even alchemical running text of many languages" be Translingual entries. Some phrases and terms to consider: List of Latin phrases and List of legal Latin terms. Maybe the pronunciation of those would be slightly different among different languages but taxonomical names with pronunciations would also have this issue to consider.
I agree with DCDuring's reasons for having the Category:Translingual citations, in addition to the reasons I stated above in my response to CodeCat. About Category:Translingual citations in English, I'm not really interested in it at the moment, but it's possible that at some point in the future I'm going to bring it up again. IMO, if we had hundreds of Translingual citation pages, then I would prefer using categories than using the search engine for more navigable results. (seeing 200 page titles at once, sorted alphabetically, where it's possible to see how many members one category has, etc.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No one except for me wanted a pronunciation header for taxonomic terms. I only wanted one suggested (ie somewhat prescriptive) pronunciation. But since Translingual terms are unlike the usual terms in a few ways, perhaps we should reconsider what the distinctive characteristics of the various types of Translingual entries are and develop a custom ELE for them. For example, we could have a "hidden" pronunciation section for taxonomic terms with pronunciations in as many languages as people care to provide.
I take your point about the possible future value of Category:Translingual citations in English. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I added the Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation in the Translingual sections of Homo sapiens and Vulpes vulpes. I deleted the English section of H. sapiens in the process, because it seemed to me it had no value other than having pronunciations, foreign script translations (like ホモサピエンス, moved link to Translingual section) and the plural "Homines sapientes", which I cited in Portuguese too. The English section had some random translations of man/person too, which I just deleted.
Custom ELE for Translingual entries = WT:AMUL? I guess it would be both the CFI and ELE for that "language", though it would have to be edited further as I see it currently focuses almost entirely on criteria for inclusion and says little about layout. I support the proposal: 'we could have a "hidden" pronunciation section for taxonomic terms with pronunciations in as many languages as people care to provide'. But maybe for the moment we could just keep adding pronunciations in any language to Translingual sections without bothering to have them collapsed. Related category: Category:Translingual terms with IPA pronunciation (292 members). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the Chinese entries are a possible model: we should have a collapsible pronunciation table along the lines of the translation table, since the same symbol is read out loud in different languages and dialects as period, full stop, point, Punkt, etc. One problem to deal with: scientific names, at least, also have syntactic information in various languages. For instance, scientific usage in English is to refer to "the family Malvaceae", but a lot of people who aren't familiar with this refer to "the Malvaceae family". Another is that scientific names are more often read than heard, so pronunciation can vary widely from person to person: I would pronounce Malvaceae as something like /malˈvej si ej/, but I often see the pronunciation given as /malˈvej si i/. Writing for the public on pronouncing scientific names tends to say things like "there's no one right way to say it- everyone is different". This is especially true when scientific names are based on names of people: if one recognizes the name, one may pronounce it after the pronunciation of the person's name, rather than by the usual rules. For example, "hopei" might be pronounced as two syllables or three, depending on whether one notices that it's based on the surname Hope. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like we should have a Pronunciation section at WT:AMUL(or WT:ATAX?) to which we can have a standard link, perhaps as part of the control for hiding/showing the pronunciations. It seems impractical and speculative to offer too many idiosyncratic pronunciations within each language. My own inclination is somewhat prescriptive with respect to a term like hopei, in case we don't have an etymology or a user doesn't look at it or make the appropriate inference. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If my input is of any value: if Wiktionary had pronunciation of taxonomic names and had them more thoroughly covered, I would look them up regularly, and would expect (and want) the prescriptive (presumably Latin), more neutral pronunciation, rather than the way it is pronounced in various languages (unless it's in common use outside of the scientific community like Homo sapiens or T. rex). The pronunciation would vary from person to person and would have too many variants for there to be any point in looking it up rather than sounding it out using the pronunciation rules of the language of the context. JodianWarrior (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Use WT:TAXON, not WT:ATAX: "tax" is ISO 639-3 for Tamki language. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
While this approach sound good in theory, it has little practical value. The prescriptive back-constructed Classical Latin pronunciations are not actually used by modern scientists in the area of taxonomy. For example, the genus of pine is Pinus, which in Classical Latin sounds exactly like English penis, so only the most eccentric of taxonomists uses that pronunciation. Even the family names in botany vary wildly in their use pronunciations by country, and none of them use the Classical-style pronunciation that I have ever heard (and I've heard US, UK, Danish, French, and Portuguese botanists).
So, what would be the point of prescribing pronunciations that no one actually uses? If we're going to include pronunciations for scientific taxon names, then I would suggest we limit ourselves to those pronunciations found in English-speaking countries, and include as a matter of course, a link to a page where the variability of these names in other cultures is explained with some examples. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That seems like a sensible recommendation. It would give English users of Wiktionary some clue about one or more intelligible (descriptive) pronunciations and might provide hints relevant to other languages, such as stress pattern, diphthongs, or diaeresis, hard vs soft c and ch, etc, which probably apply across many languages. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Audio" in front of pron files for non-pluricentric languages[edit]

Do languages that do not have several very well established regional varieties (an example of this could be English (US), English (UK), English (Aus), etc.) need the text "Audio" prepended before their pronunciation file players? Neitrāls vārds (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a "best practices" recommendation: "Audio" before a pronunciation file should be used only in the presence of some other qualifier. It is otherwise redundant As bullet points are used to itemize/list text, a bullet point is not to be used either (because a Flash element is not text.) (Ping some users whose editing involves pronunciation files User:Pereru, User:Panda10, anyone else welcome to express their opinion.)

Pronunciations would be formatted in the following way for pluricentric languages languages:

And the following way for languages whose pronunciation files usually do not feature additional qualifiers:

(file)

or

(file)
  • Hyphenation: Ame‧ri‧ka

Modified 2nd version: "Audio" is not to be used in the absence of some other qualifier but bullet point must be used.

3rd version: "Audio" is not to be used in the absence of some other qualifier. An editor can choose whether to use a bullet point. ({{IPA}} doesn't appear to be checking for namespace when adding categories the IPA examples should be removed from this page at some point or namespace-checking/cat suppression should be added to the template.)

Just learned that ping won't work without signing. User:Pereru, User:Panda10. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the bullet point should be retained in all cases. It makes the flash element align with the other things, and gives them all the same visual 'introduction' (a bullet point); it also makes the edit window more legible, IMO; furthermore, it helps when indentation is used: for example, if audio were added to impact, it could be indented under the 'noun' and 'verb' lines (although see object for another way of presenting such information; we are not consistent).
If we were to drop "Audio" from non-pluricentric languages, could we just drop it from all languages? Then we would have:
and
- -sche (discuss) 21:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the bullet point NOT to be retained -- the result is that the flash element is placed right under the pronunciation transcription to which it refers, as part of the same paragraph -- which to me is more logical: the pronunciation file is not a separate pronunciation, a separate item in a list of possible pronunciations, but an actual realization of the same pronunciation that was transcribed with the IPA right above it, i.e. logically part of the same paragraph. (I might even prefer it if the flash element occurred in the same line and after the actual IPA transcription; but occurring right under it is also OK.) --Pereru (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that we have a template {{audio-IPA}} for when the audio is meant to go with the IPA transcription. --WikiTiki89 22:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the "Audio" label. If there are qualifiers, they can be displayed without the "Audio" label. It would also be fine removing the bullets but without them two or more audio templates will be displayed in a single line. It doesn't look good. Maybe you can modify the audio template to resolve this. Leaving the use of bullets optional is probably not a good policy. Some editors would use it, others won't. It would create too much inconsistency in the layout. I assume the new standards will be implemented by a bot and they will continued to be checked after every edit. --Panda10 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The only concern I have is that the player and associated graphic do not always display in some browsers or under certain conditions. If we remove the "(Audio)" text, can we ensure that when the player fails to display, that default text of "(Audio)" or something equally descriptive appears in its place? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Old Italic standardization proposals[edit]

I've recently been working on Module:Ital-translit and Appendix:Old Italic script and have come to the point where I need some oppinions. The Ital code block does not currently possess all the characters needed fully to encode all the languages that use it; so I propose the following rules to standardize the Ital's use. Previous conversations maybe found at User talk:JohnC5#Testing transliteration modules and WT:Beer parlour/2013/June#South Picene alphabet.

Proposal 1:All entries should be written left-to-right[edit]

The majority (if not all) of the languages that use Ital are written boustrophedon and thus could have lemmata appearing in left-to-right or right-to-left order. Modern scholarship, however, tends to merely unspool the inscriptions and then present them in left-to-right order. I therefore propose that all languages using Ital should be lemmatized in left-to-right order.

Support. This is proper use of Unicode, because Ital is encoded as left-to-right. If we ever decide to make some piece of Old Italic text in boustrophedon or right-to-left, it should be done with HTML, never by typing it backwards like some have suggested. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I second everything Ungoliant said above. --WikiTiki89 16:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Ungoliant. It would be wonderful if we could have a template to wrap Old Italic quotations which would present the text boustrophedon. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2:Allow alternative use of Ital characters[edit]

For much of Ital script, the character may be transcribed unambiguously or with only minor phonetic deviations from the canonical. Examples are represented be a blue box in Appendix:Old Italic script and include:

  • 𐌂: canonical - c; Camunic, Oscan, South Picene, Noric, North Picene - g
  • 𐌅: canonical - v; Old Latin - f
  • 𐌈: canonical - θ; Umbrian - t; Noric - d

However, in some cases, one language may use one glyph to represent an entirely different sound (whether by innovation of a new but similar letterform or by reällocation of a previous letterform). Examples are represented be a red box in Appendix:Old Italic script and include:

  • 𐌁: canonical - b; Camunic - ś; Raetic - tʼ / þ
  • 𐌑: canonical - ś; Camunic - b; South Picene - í
  • 𐌣: canonical - 50; Camunic - þ; Faliscan - f

I therefore propose the use of the character which most closely resembles the letterform in a particular language. Therefore South Picene matereíh should be lemmatize as 𐌌𐌀𐌕𐌄𐌓𐌄𐌑𐌇 ‎(matereíh) and not 𐌌𐌀𐌕𐌄𐌓𐌄𐌝𐌇 ‎(matereíh). The rules will be those set forth in Appendix:Old Italic script

Support. I see no reason against this. --WikiTiki89 16:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
My initial reaction is to oppose. As was just noted in the Grease Pit, "б in Serbian is sometimes displayed differently from the б in Russian", but we don't handle this by using a different character for Serbian б in an attempt to mimic its shape. For Runic, we make do with or , even when the inscription clearly has S. If Unicode has encoded something as, for example, "LETTER SHE", and we use it in spelling a word which is actually spelled with "LETTER II", I don't see how readers are supposed to figure out that the word isn't spelled with she (and wonkily transliterated by us). - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Re "in some cases, one language may use one glyph to represent an entirely different sound (whether by innovation of a new but similar letterform or by reällocation of a previous letterform)", I suppose there is an important theoretical difference between innovational homoglyphs and reällocated glyphs; the former simply doesn't exist in the encoded repertoire, whilst it is perfectly appropriate to transcribe the latter in whatever noncanonical way according to the reällocation of a given language. I doubt that the distinction has any more than theoretical importance, however, so I find myself inclined to support the use of noncanonical transcriptions where a given language calls for it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 3:Add extra characters into Ital temporarily[edit]

The interpunct ·, two dot punctuation , and tricolon are all variously used as word separators in Ital languages and should be used as punctuation in entries. Furthermore, South Picene (always the culprit) uses · to represent the letter o and for the letter f. Thus the entry mefiín contains the quotation:

  • 𐌀𐌐𐌀𐌄𐌔⁝𐌒𐌖𐌐𐌀[𐌕?⁝𐌄?]𐌔𐌌𐌑𐌍⁝𐌐𐌞𐌐𐌞𐌍𐌉𐌔⁝𐌍𐌑𐌓⁝𐌌𐌄⁚𐌉𐌑𐌍⁝𐌅𐌄𐌉𐌀𐌕⁝𐌅𐌄𐌐𐌄𐌕𐌑
    apaes qupa[t? e?]smín púpúnis nír mefiín veiat vepetí
    The nobleman lies, the chief of the Picenes (?) is (?), in the middle of the tomb.

Until such time as Unicode adds one-, two-, and three-dot word-separators to the Ital code block, · (U+00B7), (U+205A), and (U+205D) should be used in entries and, in the case of South Picene, in page names (mefiín should be moved to 𐌌𐌄⁚𐌉𐌑𐌍 ‎(mefiín)).

Oppose. This is improper use of Unicode. It’s no different than using | (pipe) instead of I (capital i). I prefer using transliteration since the script variant used by South Picene is clearly not covered well enough by Unicode, but using 𐌏 and 𐌚 are also a better solution. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I disagree with Ungoliant. This is nothing like using | (pipe) instead of I (capital i), because I (capital i) exists in Unicode. --WikiTiki89 16:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I seriously doubt that Unicode will add Old Italic specific punctuation; punctuation is for all scripts where possible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I can support using U+00B7, U+205A and U+205D for punctuation, but using them for letters is indeed a misuse of Unicode like Ungoliant said. Why not use the regular "O" (U+1030F) and "F" (U+1031A) codepoints for South Picene? It does not seem particularly distinct from, say, the Serbian variant of Cyrillic to me. Keφr 08:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I support using · (U+00B7), (U+205A), and (U+205D) as punctuation marks in Old Italic languages (until such time as Unicode encodes punctuation marks specific to Old Italic). I oppose using · (U+00B7) and (U+205A) for South Picene o and f; we should instead use 𐌏 and 𐌚 in conjunction with a font that will make those letters display as dots (as I suggested at User talk:JohnC5#Testing transliteration modules). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 4:Page names should be in Ital when applicable[edit]

For several of these languages (Old Latin most notably), there may exist a corpus written in the Latn alphabet. The majority of the languages exist primarily in their version of the Ital alphabet and should be lemmatized as such. It is the scholarly practice to place words transcribed from Ital in boldface and those found in Latn in italics or roman. Where possible, we should strive to put words found in Ital or Latn according to their appearance in the source. The major offender at this point is Faliscan, the majority of whose entries, I suspect, should be in Ital (also, -el̄u shouldn't have a macron in the page name).

Support. Entries should be in the same script as the original attestation, not printed transcriptions. --WikiTiki89 17:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. We are a printed work, therefore we should follow the standards of printed works. Don't Proliferate; Transliterate!. Trying to post entries in Old Italic also demands that we have translation entries for Latin script so people actually using printed works can look things up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. I am not a printed work. Keφr 20:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Extremely strong support, except, perhaps, for Old Latin (iff its corpus is primarily Latn). Perhaps we should do something similar to what is done with Gothic, and have entries for the Latn spellings of every Ital lemma. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for how long this is, but I needed to discuss all the different issues because each affects how words will be lemmatized. When we have a decision, I will create WT:AITAL with the information.

People who may be interested: @I'm so meta even this acronym, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, EncycloPetey, The Man in Question, Wikitiki89, Kephir. —JohnC5 03:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ping fail. Please read mw:Help:Echo#Technical details to learn why (you added section headers). Keφr 06:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Grrrrr, that explains a lot. @I'm so meta even this acronym, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, EncycloPetey, The Man in Question, Wikitiki89, KephirJohnC5 13:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I do not feel that I have neither enough knowledge of Old Italic nor of its script to offer any meaningful opinions in this discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Collapse multiple inflection-of definitions into one with subsenses?[edit]

I've always been bothered by entries like agri and aquae. There's no need to repeat "of (word)" four times on separate lines. So I'm thinking it would be good to extend {{inflection of}} so that you can specify distinct multiple inflections instead of just one. These would be displayed as subsenses, so that aquae would look like:

  1. inflections of aqua:
    1. nominative plural
    2. genitive singular
    3. dative singular
    4. vocative plural

I think this would look a lot better, and above all there is only one link to the lemma rather than 3 extra redundant ones. We can also make the list of subsenses collapsible in cases where there's too many (like for German adjectives).

To implement this, {{inflection of}} would need some way to indicate how to separate multiple inflections. This would have to be some kind of special tag that is inserted as a separator, like: {{inflection of|aqua||nom|p|(sep)|gen|s|(sep)|dat|s|(sep)|voc|p|lang=la}}. My question is what the separator should be. It should be something that isn't legitimately used in existing entries and would not likely be used in future ones. If proposals are made, the current template can be modified to track any uses of those proposed tags in current entries, which would then allow us to assess the situation better. —CodeCat 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I love this idea! --WikiTiki89 20:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    And I was just about to suggest making it collapsible and then I realized you already said that. --WikiTiki89 21:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. A trivial case of redundancy not worth addressing. And I think subsenses should not be used unless a word has so many definitions that they would become too hard to navigate otherwise. And I especially oppose having them collapsed. Which particular inflected form the word is in is crucial information and the reader should not be required to click through to see it. Keφr 20:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Have you ever seen roten? —CodeCat 12:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • So you want to make definition lists less usable for the sake of one word? (Which is not going to help with anything anyway; collapsible or not, you still have a long list.) Keφr 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't see how they're made less usable to begin with, I think this increases usability. But roten isn't the only German adjective like this; all German adjectives have one form ending in -en which has this many definitions. Editors have so far sidestepped this issue by using {{inflected form of}}, which really isn't any good as it doesn't say anything about what inflected form. You said yourself that this is crucial information. —CodeCat 13:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
          • How about this? Keφr 13:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
            • It's an improvement, but still quite a long list. —CodeCat 13:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
              • I find it completely bearable. Your "solution", on the other hand, does not shorten it at all. You are going to have a long list no matter what. The only situation in which this proposal would be of any help is when a single token is derived from multiple lemmata; but I suspect these situations to be quite rare. Keφr 13:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks nice to me. —JohnC5 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I would like to suggest a comma or a semicolon, since those are separators people would use in running text- we might as well make it as intuitive as possible. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A comma could be used legitimately, like if someone wants to write "nominative, accusative and dative". —CodeCat 00:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Another thought: allow groups that share one element, so that you could have "|nom|acc|voc|s|" that would be the same as "|nom|s|,|acc|s|,|voc|s|" Chuck Entz (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
        • It would be quite complicated to do that, the module would have to somehow guess that the singular label applies to all of the previous. Not worth the trouble considering all the edge cases there are with this. Dutch has a form for masculine/feminine gender, plural or definite adjective inflection, just to name an example of overlapping sets. —CodeCat 00:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. How would this impact verb forms where the person can be the same for each form but also could be different? See vizsgáljuk. --Panda10 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't change anything directly, it just adds new possibilities. You'd have to modify the entry to make use of it. In this case, you'd change the definition to: {{inflection of|vizsgál||1|p|indic|pres|def|;|1|p|subj|pres|def|lang=hu}}. —CodeCat 13:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, that works. I noticed the word "inflections of" is in plural since it lists multiple inflected forms below, but for some reason "inflection of" would sound better to me because it is after all a single form used in multiple places. --Panda10 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm indifferent about this personally, what do other editors think? —CodeCat 13:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I lean towards "inflection of", too, even when multiple inflections are given. It certainly shouldn't be "inflections of" if only one inflection is given. Will the template still indent the "list" if it only contains one item, like abnegationem? (It's not disastrous if it does, but it's unnecessary.) - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Well, see for yourself on abnegationem. :) It displays the way it always did. —CodeCat 20:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there seems to be overwhelming support, I've added the necessary code for this to {{inflection of}}. I've chosen ; (semicolon) as the separator. See aquae, which I've changed to make use of this new option. We would likely want to inform bot owners of this, and also run a bot to convert existing entries. —CodeCat 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

One day after starting the discussion? Typical CodeCat. Just stop and let the discussion proceed in a regular fashion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (just saw this) Ummm. . . so how will we key quotations to specific senses, if they're all collapsed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Aren't quotations under the lemma form, not under the inflected form? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • They can be, in languages like English that have little inflection. But for highly-inflected languages like Latin, they cannot. We want documentation of the various inflected forms, and many Latin verbs are incompletely conjugated, and some other Latin words have inflectional irregularities. It is not feasible to try to include supporting quotations for all forms of a Latin verb under the lemma; there are simply too many forms, and identifying and sorting the various forms within a lemma page would be disastrous for the sanity of both editors and users. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Angr is right, quotations and usage examples go on the lemma form. Quotations shouldn't be used merely to attest a term, they exist as a higher-quality alternative to usage examples. If the idea is to show attestation of a term, then it should go on the citation page, which exists for that purpose. —CodeCat 13:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
          • No, Angr is wrong about this. We are not simply attesting the term and its usage as a collection of forms, but are cataloging spelling variation, different plural forms, and different inflected forms. While any of these can be listed at the lemma, it serves no useful purpose whatsoever to restrict them there. It is much more useful to be able to find supporting citations associated with the specific form of the word, rather than with a lemma form that, in some cases, has been chosen arbrtrarily from among the possible alternatives. If we are showing usage examples, as you say and as I agree, then those need to be placed on the forms pages too. If I want to see how the dative form of a word is used, I want to look at a collection of usages in the dative, not usage of all of the forms together. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Then that certainly goes against the common practice among editors. Editors put usage examples for any of the inflected forms on the page of the lemma, and have done so since forever. They don't restrict themselves to putting only usage examples for the lemma form on that page. This practice is established enough that some editors will move the usage examples from a non-lemma page to the lemma. A change to this would certainly need further discussion.
              If you're looking for usage examples for the dative in a given language, you should not expect to find them in a dictionary under some random word. Explaining how cases are used is the job of a grammar, not a lexicon. —CodeCat 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
              @CodeCat Re: "Editors put usage examples for any of the inflected forms on the page of the lemma, and have done so since forever.": Evidence, please. That does not match my recollection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
            • As CodeCat and Angr have said: citations showing how a term is used go in the lemma entry. If in specific, unusual cases citations are needed to verify that the dative plural of a term is foobarenn rather than the usually-expected foobaren or whatever, then those citations go on the citations page. This has been the case for years. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Argument from what "has been the case for years" (and I will not bother to argue whether this has actually been the situation or not) is a weak argument that does not address any objective Wiktionary is trying to accomplish. Further, your argument above makes sense only if (1) citations exist solely for the purpose of demonstrating grammatical usage, and (2) grammtical usage does not vary with form. But in some languages, the usage of a term may actually vary with the form of the inflection. As a simple example, the grammar of singular and plural millē are very differently in Latin. I would also argue that assuming point (1) is an unnecessary limitation on Wiktionary. Citations exist to document forms and spelling at least equal in measure to documenting proper grammar. To that end, each variant should ideally be (eventually) documented from sources. That cannot be reasonably accomplished if all the various citations are limited to the lemma page. And CodeCat, no one is suggesting we put the citations under a "random word"; that is a straw man argument. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

the writing on the wall[edit]

We do not have an entry for any form of mene mene tekel upharsin (numbered, numbered, weighed, and divided). I think the language is Chaldean Aramaic (Biblical Aramaic) and it was probably written on the wall in Neo-Babylonian cuneiform script. Today, however, it is commonly used in English texts in Roman letters. Should there be an entry in Roman letters, and if so, what language to label it? I supposed it could be written in Hebrew (מְנֵ֥א מְנֵ֖א תְּקֵ֥ל וּפַרְסִֽין), Syriac, and/or cuneiform (if the spellings could be found in those scripts). —Stephen (Talk) 15:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  • It's written in Hebrew in a famous painting (I think in the National Gallery, London). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It's certainly written in Hebrew letters in the Bible. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I had a children's Bible that showed it in Roman letters. Not very "English" though. Redirect? Equinox 18:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, probably redirect, since the string is long enough that it's unlikely to be an unrelated word in another language. - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The phrase was never used in Aramaic in Roman letters. The pronunciation currently in the entry is the English pronunciation. So either it should be converted to English, or it should be a redirect. --WikiTiki89 12:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Use "male" and "female" for gendered nouns[edit]

Many languages have nouns that occur in different forms depending on the natural gender of the referent, like French comédien/comédienne, English actor/actress. This is not actually grammatical gender the way we know it, exemplified by the fact that languages that have no grammatical gender can still often make such distinctions. Of course grammatical gender may align with natural gender in this case, but it doesn't have to (I can't think of an example, but maybe someone else can). Spanish amiga is not a grammatically feminine form of the lemma amigo; rather both are independent nouns and have different meanings. The choice is made based on the referent rather than based on grammatical rules.

So I think that using the terms "masculine" and "feminine" and using {{feminine of}} and such for these cases is incorrect and confusing, as it conflates grammatical and natural gender. It's especially bizarre in entries like mayoress with languages that don't even have grammatical gender. I'm therefore proposing to introduce the separate terms "male" and "female" to refer to natural gender in these cases. amiga is the female equivalent or female counterpart of amigo, not a form. There would need to be two new form-of templates. —CodeCat 20:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are independent nouns then why do we need more templates at all? Define them separately, as e.g. "a man who mows lawns" and "a woman who mows lawns", and each can link to the other as a related term. Equinox 20:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not ideal, because they might have many distinct meanings. Duplicating them all would be bad. The idea of a new template is to indicate "this noun means the same as this other one, except referring to a female individual". —CodeCat 20:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. The Italian words gato and gata both mean cat. The animals are make and female, but the words are masculine and feminine. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No, gato means male/unspecified cat, while gata means female cat. And, this is exactly my point. Grammatical gender is arbitrary. "Feminine of gato" tells us nothing; it merely indicates that this noun is related to "gato" but has feminine grammatical gender. Nothing in the entry indicates that the cat itself has to be female, only that the word referring to it is feminine. —CodeCat 20:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I can think of cases where grammatical gender doesn't match natural gender (cailín ‎(girl) is masculine, while gasóg ‎(boy scout) and stail ‎(stallion) are feminine), but I can't think of a case where a word referring to a person of one gender is derived from a word referring to a person of the other gender, but grammatical and natural genders don't match (in a language that has grammatical gender, unlike English). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and if anyone's wondering why gato and gata are orange links, it's because the Italian words are actually gatto and gatta. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
gatta, as it is now, looks good. But as I said above, with highly polysemic words it becomes a problem to copy all the definitions. A simple template that refers to the definitions of the gender-neutral term is more effective. Also, this entry illustrates another important distinction between "feminine of" nouns and adjectives: the female equivalent noun can have meanings the male one doesn't have, or the reverse. With true grammatical gender, like that found in adjectives, that would be unthinkable. They really are separate nouns. —CodeCat 20:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll write more later, but at the moment I just want to highlight that the observation that "the female equivalent noun can have meanings the male one doesn't have, or the reverse" calls into question the sensibility of avoiding spelling out which senses each word has and instead using a template that would "indicate 'this noun means the same as this other one, except referring to a female individual'". - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right about that point. I just wanted to accommodate users who certainly want to use a template, and also existing entries that have no definition beyond {{feminine of}}. —CodeCat 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It may be wise to distinguish languages which have grammatical gender from those which do not. Because English does not normally* mark gender grammatically, it's at least debatable whether mayoress should be described as 'female' or 'feminine'. (The references turned up by google books:English "-ess" "feminine form", compared to the irrelevance turned up by google books:English "-ess" "female form", suggest that the traditional analysis has been that it's a 'feminine' rather than a 'female' form.) *Of course, note how google books:"blonde mayoress" gets two hits while "blond mayoress" gets none, and "blonde mayor" gets no hits while "blond mayor" gets at least five (plus a lot of chaff), suggesting that there are some areas where grammatical gender agreement is found in English.
In German and other languages with grammatical gender, the case for describing Wissenschaftlerin et al. as 'feminine' rather than 'female' forms of Wissenschaftler et al. is necessarily stronger, since they are feminine, and take feminine adjectives, etc, independent of whether or not they are regarded as 'feminine forms' or 'female forms' of the corresponding masculine nouns. - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
One other thing to keep in mind is that sometimes the "female equivalent of X" means "woman is who is an X" but sometimes it means "wife of an X". In the UK at least, a duchess is always the wife or widow of a duke; no woman can become duchess by virtue of her birth. Our definition of Burggräfin is "female burgrave", but when burgraves were still running around they were always male; a Burggräfin is the wife of a burgrave. A hundred years ago or so, Professorin almost always meant "wife of a professor" but today it almost always means "female professor". In the E. F. Benson novel Trouble for Lucia, a woman becomes mayor of a town in England and has to choose a mayoress to help her, but she is not the mayoress herself—in that context, then, mayoress means neither "female mayor" nor "wife of the mayor" but rather "woman who assists the mayor". I doubt a single template can or should accommodate all this variation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Those are excellent points. For words like those, I'm persuaded that we should give the words actual definitions (as Equinox said). For English, almost all of the -ess and -rix and other such entries I've seen do have definitions, and we should just clean up the few that don't. For German, the Duden has -in entries only as pointers to their masculine counterparts, but de.Wikt gives them full definitions, and entries like de:wikt:Professorin (which records the different meanings) vs Duden: Professorin (which doesn't acknowledge them) convince me that full definitions are preferable (and, I think, already the norm). That doesn't preclude the existence of entries that would be better handled by a template whose wording could then be debated, but we should probably identify some such entries before debating wording further. - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with CodeCat that there is a problem with some entries: The current presentation at amiga#Spanish reads "feminine of amigo, friend", which seems suboptimal since it highlights grammatical properties rather than focusing on the referent. However, I don't agree with CodeCat's solution of using a template. Czech učitelka says "female teacher", which seems fine to me, and preferable to using a template. Above, Angr makes a good point about duchess: female duke vs. wife of a duke. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I came across another problematic entry, coreana. The noun presumably indicates a female person, but there is again nothing in the entry to indicate that. —CodeCat 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Language codes[edit]

2015-07.11 16:30 I'd like to add some language codes for some swedish "dialects" (they should be considered languages IMO) because I don't wanna clutter the swedish entries with tons of dialectal versions, not to mention the dialects have their own grammar and pronounciations and I would like it if I could list those.

The ones I have in mind are Pitemål (Peijtmåle), Lulemål (Leulmale), Överkalixmål (Överkölismale) and Jamtlandic (Jamska).

Don't know what else i'm supposed to say really, Codecat told me to post here about it. —This unsigned comment was added by 88.83.34.190 (talk).

@Br0shaan: just letting you know that I've moved the discussion to here (from Wiktionary talk:Beer parlour, which is the talk page for discussing the Beer Parlour itself...). - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: Thanks! I a little new to wiktionary, or well, the discussion parts of it anyway. Is there anything special I need to provide to get this suggestion get accepted?Br0shaan (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Br0shaan: we do not have the requisite framework for handling languages with a lot of dialects. Armenian has circa 50 dialects with their own word forms, pronunciations and grammar. For now I have come up only with a way to show the word forms on the entry with the literary spelling: Module:hy:Dialects. See it used in փետուր ‎(pʿetur), գազար ‎(gazar), բամբակ ‎(bambak). You can create a similar module for Swedish. --Vahag (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vahagn: That's a shame, but the module looks alright. How do you deal with words with formations completely different from standard words? Just create a new word entry? Also how should I list these in derivation trees when looking at things like norse or proto-germanic? not at all? Because that would be very dissapointing. Anyway, thanks for the help and the quick reply! :) 88.83.34.190 13:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Just create a new entry, like կյա̈զա̈ր, and label it with {{label|se|dialectal|Lulemål or whatever}}. The list of labels can be added to Module:labels/data which will allow automatic categorization and linking to Wikipedia. As for derivation trees, there is no accepted way of doing things; I have tried a format like in ճանդարի ‎(čandari). --Vahag (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll see what i'll come up with for derivation trees, thanks for the help! Br0shaan (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vahagn: Also could you familiarize me with how the module works and how to implement it? Is there any good documentation?
The module is invoked by {{alter}}. It has some documentation. Just copy the format of Module:grc:Dialects; it is pretty simple. --Vahag (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually figured it out myself before i saw your answer, so yeah it was pretty easy. Most of the trouble was finding out how to make a new module page haha. Br0shaan (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging ( and ) into a single entry[edit]

I was thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to merge entries of separate brackets "(" and ")" into matched-pair entries such as "()" and leaving only single-character entries with definitions about actual uses of a single character without the other, when they exist; when they do not exist the single-character entries could redirect to the matched-pair entries.

Rationale:
1. (repetition) The way it is now, most definitions are repeated: sometimes, the left side sense is "Begins X" and the right side sense is "Ends X". I don't think one should be required to check two separate pages to see definitions for the same thing; also, "begins" and "ends" makes it a bit longer to read, especially when these two words are present in almost all senses in the two pages.

2. (consistency) With two almost identical entries, editing one entry requires editing the other for consistency. I am in the process of updating ( and ) to conform with uses quoted in Citations:(, but that makes it somewhat more cumbersome to keep both entries updated. One example of inconsistency (although easy to be fixed) is that { currently has a sense that } doesn't.

3. (lexical unit) I'd argue that since in most senses of () you can't use one without the other, they are together only one lexical unit. IMO, having them separated is like having the entry . (full stop) with the sense "The first, second, or third dot in an ellipsis, which indicates a pause or omission."

(The reason 4 was added later the same day, 21:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC) - original message linked here.)
4. (incompleteness) is defined as "Starts a quotation." and is defined as "Ends a quotation." Like a number of other current single-character entries, this seems directed to readers who already know how to use the brackets or quotation marks. (Compare (horizontal bar), defined as: "Introduces quoted text.", which from its definition seems exactly synonymous with but does not actually require any mark at the end of the text.) If they are merged into “”, then the definition is obviously going to change some way. But if they are kept as separate one-character entries, it would be more accurate to define them as:

entry for left quotation mark () - "Starts a quotation that ends with ”."
entry for right quotation mark () - "Ends a quotation that begins with “."

More examples of repeated definitions:
( - Begins supplemental information.

Sen. John McCain (R., Arizona) spoke at length.

) - Ends supplemental information.

Sen. John McCain (R., Arizona) spoke at length.

Some affected entries:

Thoughts? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, please. Though I would prefer a title of [[( ... )]] to avoid the impression that "()" appears in texts without anything in between, and because the ellipsis also lends itself well to phrases that are otherwise hard to lemmatise (e.g. I'm ... year(s) old). Keφr 09:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose , at least is not usually a paired character. is also used as an unpaired character. Even when not used as apostrophes or transliteration characters, what pairs of quotes there are and what order they come in is language-dependent; to turn « and » into «», »« and »», as w:Guillemet says is necessary, is not a win.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I have never seen an unpaired use of ; I have seen , however. Guillemets could be handled by {{alternative form of}} (and a usage note saying which form is preferred in which language): not perfect, but not tragic either. Keφr 12:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And quotes, which come in various directions. Why not just a {{paired with}} template instead of physically merging the pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • There is no such template; we do not have circumfixes or entries like how do you say...in English split into two pages either, so why this? Keφr 23:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Because it's not as neat as a- -ing. Because quotes stand alone at the starts of lines to mark continued quotes in older books; because quotes are used in different pairs in different languages and different time periods. Because many quotes, whether or not you've seen them, have been used for non-quote purposes. The braces and parenthesis can probably justifiably be put together, at least I haven't seen an exception, but the quotes are much more complex across all writing then just simple standardized matched pairs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
          • For example, says "starts a quotation". That's incomplete; it also ends a quotation, as per w:Quotation mark. It can be matched up with several others.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
            • If we create entries for every combination in w:Quotation mark#Summary table for all languages, then we would have these, as long as they are attestable: (using the format with space in the middle) “ ”, „ “, „ ”, ‘ ’, ‚ ’, « », " ", ‹ ›, » «, › ‹ and » ». I propose creating all the matched-pairs (11 entries don't look like too many, unless I'm missing something?) while leaving the single-characters with indexes to the matched-pairs. If we decide to do the opposite, e.g. keep only single-character entries and thus not create any of those matched-pairs, then the single characters would still need to have accurate indices of all formats of all language(s) either way. As an aside: 「 」 and 『 』 are fine to me, but I don't know exactly what to do with vertical brackets, I wonder if they could be treated as single-character exceptions until further discussion: and . --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The merger seems like a good idea, as the matched-pair usage is, in a sense not SoP, but it is probably also true that we can find attestation of the use of each character in isolation and, just as in the case of the morphemes that make up a compound, we would probably want to keep separate entries, even if there were no attestation apart from the matched-pair use.
We would in any event need to have hard redirects from the unmatched characters to the corresponding matched-pair entry. If we go the route of extensive hard (and soft) redirects, then the objection that no normal person would ever search for [[( ... )]] becomes moot. IOW as I see it each paired entry would need at least 3 hard or soft redirects to it and would not be useful without them. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
BTW, why don't we have non-gloss definitions for the use of most of these as part of the character-based emoticons that some of us use, eg, ?(:-【} ? They seem to be usable productively, possibly even in widespread use, eg, in Usenet. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not think it should be listed as a sense. For one, the meanings of individual characters of emoticons are very context-dependent: in the "]" in ":]" is a mouth, but in "]:->" it represents devil's horns. Would you add a sense of "represents a head in orz" to [[o]]? Keφr 16:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kephir: I would use {{n-g|Used to form images, especially of faces, used in some text-based computer communications|lang=mul}}. Usage examples would probably be better than explicit glosses. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Having in mind the emoticon o_o or o_O, you could also tweak your definition to mention that the letter "o" is used "to form images, especially of faces or eyes". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
How about [1]? Definitions of that kind would apply to so many other characters (while the actual meaning is so context-dependent, and relatively obvious in context anyway) that I doubt it would be practical or necessary to cover them all. Ever heard of ASCII art? Keφr 07:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I take your point about ASCII art and the "cell division" example that you linked here. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: They are different characters and are rarely, if ever, used successively. There's also no clear-cut way to represent them in a single entry. Purplebackpack89 15:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose using ( ... ) as the central location; the target should be blank. I abstain on whether, say, ) could be created as a soft redirect to (, for the time being. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    I request that pages ( and ) are left as they were at the start of this discussion for at least three days after the start of the discussion. I have undone moves of ( and ) done today by another user. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • If you so wish, then go on and create a page with a blank title. I will be waiting here. Keφr 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • My mistake: ( ... ) should be a redlink, like it was a couple of hours ago. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me point out that ) has sense "Separates a number or letter from an item in a list" in which "1) New York, 2) London, 3) Paris" is given as one of multiple examples; that does not fit ( ... ). --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • In my mind, we would have the entry ( ) with all uses of both parentheses together and the separate, cross-linked, entry ) for that sense you mentioned. One of multiple senses of ( ) would be exactly a variation of the sense you mentioned: "Encloses a letter or number starting an item in a list.", with "(1) New York, (2) London, (3) Paris." as the list of examples. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I don't like it. What do we do with constructions like the French "ne pas" ? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Is it grammatical to say ne pas just like that? If yes, the entry can be at [[ne pas]]. If not, use [[ne ... pas]]. The ellipsis should only be used as a last resort. Keφr 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • In French, ne pas is used without anything between the two words when negating infinitives. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm adding now the 4th bullet point of the rationale in my first message above; please see it. Concerning the page name, IMO I was thinking of adding a space in the page name, like this: ( ), « », ¿ ?, etc. Although I still see much merit in the spaceless (), «», ¿?, etc. I don't like ( ... ), particularly the fact that it's more difficult to type; though entries like this certainly would be linkable or redirected from their single-character parts. I am worried about ' and "; spaceless matched-pair entries for these two would be '' and ""; these look too ugly and '' (two apostrophes) looks identical to " (one quotation mark) to me. I think the same with space (' ' and " ") is great. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with this proposal, or to test it a little to see if it looks good, I created 18 new entries for most of the variations of quotation marks listed in w:Quotation mark. I chose to link to and from all single-characters rather than using redirects. This improves our coverage since our entries didn't mention all these varieties before. Having separate entries is also an opportunity to explain better how they are used in each language. IMO, just having the entry with "Ends a quotation." is worthless if we can write the quotation marks as many ways as “ ”, ” ” or „ ”.

See this link, it is very interesting. It is the previous version of the entry with a translation table of 33 languages - just the starting quotation mark in each one, no mention of how to end the quotation, which I find confusing and annoying since you had to go to the other page to see how the quotation mark ends — sure enough, this other link is also with a translation table under the same circumstances, except with only 30 languages. If you saw the first table and discovered that Hungarian and Romanian apparently start quotations with and Swedish starts them with , the second table won't help you to know how they end. Apparently this was intentional — since all these three seemingly end with , putting this information on the table would not be a "translation". Anyway, I deleted both tables and replaced them with one of my own. ({{quotation marks}})

Also, Dan Polansky (talkcontribs) requested: "I request that pages ( and ) are left as they were at the start of this discussion for at least three days after the start of the discussion." While I did not touch the parentheses specifically yet, I've intentionally done as he said since the discussion started on July 12 and I edited the entries of quotation marks on July 16.

New entries:

Thoughts? Is it just me or do other people think they look good too? Do people think it was a waste of time and that the new entries should all be deleted? (I acknowledge some people here opposed the proposal, others supported it.)

I mostly just copied Wikipedia as I don't speak all those languages, and I used only minimal definitions for each entry. If there's any mistake in the entries or the table feel free to fix it, also expand the entries if you like. If it's alright, I'd like to do the same for ( ), square brackets, ¿ ?, etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose proposed merge of ( and ) on the grounds that each is susceptible to unique senses. Specifically, ) typically signifies a "smile" in emoticons, and ( typically signifies a frown. While it is true that it is possible to write emoticons going the other way, this is far less common in practice. I have no opposition to having a separate entry for () or ( ) or ( ... ) for uses unique to that setup. bd2412 T 13:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I argued above that being a part of an emoticon should not constitute a sense. Does "(" in "(^_^)" signify a frown? Keφr 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose merging, but it wouldn't hurt to have an entry for the combined form, with a single sense line at the left and right symbols' entries referring users to the combined ones for more complete information/more senses. We don't want to remove information, just add to it and organize it better. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Those two last comments read like supports, actually. When a paired character has a definition corresponding to standalone usage, then this definition obviously cannot be merged with the counterpart character. Keφr 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that BD2412 (talkcontribs) and Chuck Entz (talkcontribs)'s comments actually read like supports, in that both are supporting the proposal of creating entries in the format of ( ). ("I have no opposition to having a separate entry for () or ( ) or ( ... )", "it wouldn't hurt to have an entry for the combined form"). I take the point that BD2412 and Chuck are opposing specifically the possibility of having hard redirects from single-characters to matched-pairs, like redirecting ( to ( ). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. I am specifically opposed to "merging ( and ) into a single entry". I do think that we should have an entry for "[]" (if that is possible), because that can be used to indicate the elision of text in a quote. bd2412 T 22:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Poll: Format of the matched-pair entries[edit]

What should be the format for the matched-pair entries? (This says nothing about keeping or deleting the entries for single characters, just what to do with the matched-pair entries.)

As with other polls and votes in the past, if you'd like to, you are allowed to support either one or multiple options, the same holds true for oppose and abstain.

  1. left, space, right: ( ), “ ”, « », ¿ ?, " ", ' ', [ ], { }
  2. left, right: (), “”, «», ¿?, "", '', [], {}
  3. left, space, ellipsis, space, right: ( … ), “ … ”, « … », ¿ … ?, " … ", ' … ', [ … ], { … }
  4. left, ellipsis, right: (…), “…”, «…», ¿…?, "…", '…', […], {…}

Support option 1

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support That's the one I've been using for the matched-pair entries I've been creating. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this looks neatest and makes it clear that the punctuation isn't one continuous symbol. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose option 1

Abstain option 1


Support option 2

Oppose option 2

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As I said before, IMO, (), ¿? and others look great, but "" and '' look ugly and confusing in this format. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as Daniel Carrero. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain option 2


Support option 3

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support, to clearly indicate that something goes between the paired characters, and to follow entries like I'm ... year(s) old. Keφr 10:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Are parentheses used like that outside of the phrasebook? I'm of the opinion that the phrasebook should be a semi-separate thing, like the rhymes and Wikisaurus are. (It could include translation targets that are SOP as well.) I just don't think the phrasebook should be used as a base for formatting. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose option 3

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harder to type. Even if we have redirects from ( ) and () to ( … ), most people would try to type the entry name with ellipsis anyway before figuring out the redirects, since the name with ellipsis would be the actual entry name. Redirects would not be intuitive unless we start adding the {{shortcut}} template to entries. I've created […] as an example of entry which has the ellipsis as part of the entry name, not as an indication that it is a blank space to be filled. Having [ … ] simultaneously with that entry would require some additional explanation of what is a space to be filled and what is an actual ellipsis. Just like with the English circumfixes, I don't think the ellipsis is necessary to demonstrate that the space between parentheses is a blank to be filled, because: 1) in the case of parentheses and other common English symbols, most readers probably already know how they are positioned in relation to the text anyway; but 2) especially in the case of unknown and FL brackets, the definitions should explain this satisfactorily; even a simple phrase like "Encloses supplemental information." at ( ) is good enough IMO, especially when together with examples, and perhaps usage notes when needed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The ellipses aren't actually part of the punctuation, and while they may indicate that something should go between, they look messy to me. If the user looking up the brackets/parentheses/whatever doesn't know that something goes between the two parts, then they may not know that the ellipses just stand in for something. If they know that text is supposed to go in between the two sides, then the ellipses are redundant. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain option 3


Support option 4

Oppose option 4

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reasons as my opposing vote in the option 3. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reasons as what I wrote above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Abstain option 4


Comments
Note that (…) is defined as something else than just the parentheses: "Symbol used to substitute parts of a quotation that are deliberately omitted.". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

FL example sentences[edit]

There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency in the formatting of example sentences under foreign language entries. I've been reformatting them as I come across them, but it's a lot of work, and I'm not sure if there are any accepted formats besides the one given in the guidelines. Speaking of which:

  1. (Definition.)
    Voici un exemple.
    Here is an example.
  1. (Definition.)
    Voici un exemple.
    Here is an example.

Both of the above are considered correct according to WT:ELE, and both are common. Is one preferred over the other, or are both in equal use and equally allowed?

Now, here are some formats of FL examples that I've come across frequently for Spanish sentences (but with often missing punctuation included):

  1. (Definition.)
    Voici un exemple. - Here is an example.
    Voici un exemple. — “Here is an example.”
    Voici un exemple. -- Here is an example.

There are others, but the above seem to be especially widespread (at least in Spanish entries), and at least some are being included in new definitions. Should I just leave them alone, or fix them as I see them? Is it possible to fix something like that with a bot? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

For very short usage examples, it is sometimes better to display them as a single line. You can add the argument inline=1 to {{ux}} or {{usex}} to make it so. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
As for bolding the term in the translation, you should do so whenever possible. The only exception is that sometimes the differences between the languages will make it impossible to isolate the term in the translation. --WikiTiki89 19:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless it is debated, I think it should be noted at WT:ELE#Example_sentences that the translation of the term should be in bold as well, since it isn't clear due to lack of consistency. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've updated WT:ELE and WT:USEX. Did I miss anything (does anything still need to be updated)? - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The example translations and transcriptions further down the page at WT:USEX don't show that the translation/transcription of the word is to be in bold as well as the term itself, nor is that mentioned at WT:ELE. I would add it for clarity's sake, so new users like me know to do it, as trivial as it may be.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche I missed this before, but the example "For non-English words in non-Latin alphabets" at WT:USEX specifies that there are to be no italics or words in bold in the translation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've updated both of those sections. Please let me know if I've missed anything else that needs to be done. :) - -sche (discuss) 16:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Persistent extensions of votes[edit]

I consider these numerous persistent extensions (in summa: 4 with a fifth attempt thwarted; I find the præsence of the adjective fair in this fifth attempt maladroit) of a single vote truly inappropriate or at least disconcerting. I would like to clarify that currently this not a critical remark regarding the vote’s closing or outcome, instead I would like to discountenance said adjustment ad libitum of the expiration date of that already protracted vote with the aim to impede an outcome that at the time of the second extension (beginning of April) was an evident lack of consensus (7-6). Actually this had been mine initial motivation for participating in the vote: the desire to contribute with one more vote to the manifestness of the rejection and hopefully præcipitate the closure of that vote.
To me, there is no reasonable justification for extending any vote more that one month (to put it simply or to appeal to æsthetics: those numerous struck extensions encumber the mere lecture of the vote’s content), or at most one and a half months, but I would be interested to heed to others’ suggestions (if any arise) for a temporal limitation in that sense in order to præclude future unconfined extensions. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know what are the reasons for extending a vote. Should we really wait for the people who voted later?
Concerning the Sanskrit vote, I've made a chart of the extensions and what would be the results if the vote, which ended 5 6 July 2015, had ended on each of the previous scheduled dates:
  • (5-5-1) 5 March 2015
  • (6-5-1) 5 April 2015
  • (9-6-1) 5 May 2015
  • (11-6-1) 5 June 2015
  • (12 11-6-1) 5 July 2015
  • (12-6-1) 6 July 2015
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
If, instead of respecting the deadline, we repeatedly move it ahead until such time as we happen to have a sufficient number of voters to call it a consensus (which 12–6 isn't really, but let's ignore that arguendo), then we're favoring view of such latecomers as happen to come across the vote first, a selection bias. If we believe that a longer time is necessary or desired, then (0) that longer time should be set when first proposing the vote and not extended. And if that realization comes post facto, then, ideally, (1) call it no consensus, discuss and advertise the issue better in the BP and perhaps elsewhere, and start a new and better vote, if desired. Or, at least, (2) we should have a limit of one extension on a vote. Or, at the very least, (3) we should extend a vote as long again after consensus is achieved as we did before it was (and as long again after it's achieved in the opposite direction, if that happens). Any of those would seem much fairer than the method employed at the particular vote that led to this discussion.​—msh210 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ever heard of an Allen charge? --WikiTiki89 21:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Msh210 that the practice of extending votes until victory (or defeat) is achieved is an unfair procedure. I don't think it matters on which side the extender votes or whether the extender abstains, but it is particularly suspect when the outcome is the same as the extender's vote. It is at best a lazy procedure and at worst a corrupt one.
The only remedy is to void the vote. Obviously it can be reproposed and revoted, possibly after recrafting the proposal. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of particular suspectness and your proposed remedy. Voiding often provides relief.  :-) ​—msh210 (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Everyone had four full months in which to question, complain, or lodge a protest, but everyone was silent during all of that time. Voiding the vote now, after acquiescing to the multiple extensions by maintaining silence, would be unfair to those on the winning side of the decision. The best thing to do at this point would be to leave this vote as it stands, and to develop a policy that will address the extensions issue in future vote. However, if a lot of people are hell-bent on overturning the decision, then we should put it to an official vote on whether to void the decision and redo the original vote (emphasis on official vote to void the decision). —Stephen (Talk) 12:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be a fairly common practice for votes (and discussions) here to drag out seemingly without end. This one was no exception. Furthermore, discussions are not mere exercises in bean counting. Five out of six editors expressing opposition to the proposal provided no substantive argument on the matter. The sixth provided a factual error as their premise. All of that can reasonably have weighed into the outcome. Are we now going to reopen every discussion that was closed after a series of extensions? bd2412 T 13:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This is about a corrupting procedural matter, not substance. For those whose ox is gored as a result of the abuse of voting procedure, the option of not accepting the extensions was open.
"Are we now going to reopen every discussion that was closed after a series of extensions?"
No. If we do it once and adhere to a policy of no unilateral extensions, we will never have to void a vote again. If the extension process had not been abused by repeated extensions only to result in a bare victory for the view supported by the person extending, this would not have come up. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If you thought it was a corrupting procedural matter, why didn’t you say something about it during those four months? There have been quite a few votes where the end date was extended, often more than once. Why didn’t you say something during all of those times? Any one of you could have close the vote and made the decision at the end of each of those extensions, but none of you did. Why not? So why now, all of a sudden, has it become a "corrupting procedural matter"? Whether it was a good idea or a bad idea, you, like all the rest, went right along with it until somebody didn’t like a decision, so now you want to throw around accusations of curruption. That’s ridiculous, you had ample time and opportunity to speak up and say that you are against it. Instead of bashing someone who was just trying to do what he thought was right, while you kept silent and looked the other way, just propose that we have a vote to void the decision.
And whether you like it or not, it creates a precedent, and anybody in the future who does not like an outcome can claim malfeasance of some sort and demand the vote be thrown out. Either we accept that it’s okay to void a vote someone does not like, or we don’t do it. —Stephen (Talk) 14:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right: I should have spoken up after each extension. I saw them and ignored them. Maybe it's w:Kitty Genovese syndrome or a simple desire to avoid confrontation. (To answer your "Any one of you could have close[d] the vote and made the decision at the end of each of those extensions, but none of you did. Why not?", though — I fully intended to after two of the later ones, but they were re-extended before I had a chance.) But closure on the first opportunity, on a slim margin, by someone who voted like the closure? I needed to say something. Note, though, that I don't mind the substance of the decision at all: I looked only a little into the Sanskrit issue, but think the proposal makes sense. Nonetheless, the procedure followed stank.​—msh210 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Re "intended to after two of the later ones, but they were re-extended before I had a chance", consider e.g. Wiktionary:Votes/2015-03/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace, which was repeatedly extended just before its deadline. Obviously, no one can close it at that time (last-minuite voters may yet come). (Pinging SGB.)​—msh210 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with Stephen here. --WikiTiki89 14:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I. You can't void a vote because you don't like the use of the established process. If you want to overturn the decision, start a vote for that. If you want to change or clarify the rules going forward, we can discuss that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't get involved in the vote because I didn't have an opinion and wasn't watching the page. I've missed lots of votes. We haven't had anything quite as egregious as this lately. Were the procedural process not such a bad precedent I wouldn't have cared. Sorry that your ox is gored as a result of the practice of other supporters of the proposal.
I've got another idea. Why don't we have another extension? DCDuring TALK 15:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Better yet, extend again as long as it's been extended hitherto, as I suggested above.​—msh210 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The vote is ended and decided. What you are suggesting is voiding the decision (without a vote to do so) and opening the vote again so that you can beat the bushes to scare up enough votes to win the opposite decision. It is the same thing as overturning the vote and having a redo. Why not just save everybody the trouble and declare the decision reversed (failed)?
If you want to void the decision (which is unfair to the majority who supported and won already), you need to hold an official vote for the purpose of voiding the decision of the Sanskrit vote and doing the vote over again (which will set a precedent for having do-overs whenever anybody does not like the outcome of a vote). —Stephen (Talk) 23:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, DCDuring, there are several votes on WT:Votes that are ready for closure and decision right now. Since you think we’re egregiously corrupt and bereft of ethics, why don’t you nip over there and close the votes yourself? Or would you prefer that we continue to do it so that it’s more convenient for you to say we’re corrupt? —Stephen (Talk) 23:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I ever said that individuals were corrupt, only that the process was. In any event, that is what I intended and I stand by that. I'd favor other people closing votes rather than me as I can't figure out how the archiving is suppose to go, but I closed a few votes that had run their appointed term.
Judging by the low participation, I wonder why we give any force at all to the outcome of some votes. If we can't muster a quorum (6, 7, 8, 10?; counting abstainers?; differing for various classes of votes (bot status, admin votes, substantive?), then there should be no mandatory policy resulting from the vote. Votes probably need to be more publicized. The subpage structure interferes with achieving comprehensive coverage of votes. Would Editor news be good for that or BP? Do we need a tickler system (a single page?) of some kind to remind folks when a vote starts, when it is about to end, when and how it was decided?
Perhaps BP polls would provide guidance without something becoming mandatory. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Your accusing me of making my suggestion "so that [I] can beat the bushes to scare up enough votes to win the opposite decision" is inappropriate and insulting. First of all, I mentioned above that I mind the procedure followed not the decision itself. Second, even if I disagreed with the decision substantively, that'd be a groundless accusation. You're right that the vote has been called. Arguably, it's been called inappropriately. Can't people contest the closure on the vote page and see if consensus builds there to let it stand closed or not, without holding a new vote on the issue, and with the burden on those who wish to reopen it (viz so that, if no consensus builds at all, the vote stays closed)? In my opinion yes.​—msh210 (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@msh210: I don't think the initially set end date of the vote is a deadline, and that our procedure is to forbid extending a vote. That would be another procedure, not the one that we have. In fact, we do not have a specified procedure as for the meaning of the end date of the vote, merely the common practice. And the common practice is to allow extensions of a vote, as was done e.g. in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2; if anyone is interested, I can collect all votes that were ever extended. My extending this particular vote was driven by the same tentative unspoken principles I was using in previous votes that I have extended. You participated on extension of Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3; have you changed your mind, meanwhile? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my participation on the 2014 vote, Dan, no doubt due to unawareness rather than malice. As the talkpage there shows, my extension was only after there was a clear consensus and because the consensus had been newly reached during a previous extension. That is exactly in the spirit of my comments here (if perhaps the details vary slightly).​—msh210 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@msh210: Oh, I see, sorry for that. As an aside, I do realize the danger of selection bias, and do see where you are coming from in principle even though I happen to think the concern with selection bias is excessive, and that the real risk is much lower than it appears. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Repeated extensions of votes are a great thing. People are slow to come to votes. There is nothing unethical about extending votes, nothing that I was able to discover when I investigated the question. There is very little opportunity for the extender to use selection bias. You cannot on any vote just wait until 2/3 supermajority happens; most votes do not create that opportunity. In any vote in which waiting until 2/3 worked, there was in fact a lot more support than opposition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me echo multiple editors above: Extending votes is a common practice. This practice can be objected to, but it is not like Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit is the first or second vote to use that practice. During the multiple extensions of the vote, there was ample opportunity for those who deem the practice "corrupt" to speak their mind on this issue, on the vote talk page, in Beer parlour or elsewhere. Obviously, I do not consider the practice "corrupt". Nonetheless, by my principles, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit should be extended by one month; it should not be voided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-07/Disallowing extending of votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    It is a simple question of allowing rabid parliamentarians to dominate the voting process by effectively steering marginal proposals to victory or defeat by the simple rule of: Terminate the vote at the stated termination date if the outcome is what one wants; extend the vote if it is not. It was and is how many legislative bodies are run, but we don't have to let it happen that way. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • And how do you want to accomplish that? —Keφr 00:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      No extension of votes, to prevent closer/extender from choosing when the right time to close it. Minimum number of voters for a vote to be effective, to prevent votes that were not well publicized from being enacted. I'm open to other suggestions. Any proposed vote needs a seconder. DCDuring TALK 01:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

All we should do is to show active votes more actively. For example, putting them in the watchlist page below Wanted Entries will dramatically increase the awareness of new votes. This has been suggested by YairRand ••Dixtosa (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • In general, oppose extension of votes Discussions need not drag on indefinitely. Votes are open for a month as it is; easily long enough for people who edit here with any kind of activity at all to notice them. Same with RfDs: after a month, they should be closed and archived, even if there isn't a clear consensus, with the "no consensus" outcome defaulting to keep. Purplebackpack89 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of good faith edits with no explanation[edit]

I have been a very sporadic contributor to Wiktionary for a number of years. Sometimes I have little bursts of activity, and then sometimes long gaps of inactivity. One of the things that repeatedly drives me away just when I might be getting enthusiastic about joining the project is the unexplained deletion of added content, such as happened here. This comes across as extremely rude and hostile. I understand that a lot of vandalism and nonsense has to be reverted, and I understand that mistakes are sometimes made. However, this has happened to me too often, and mostly (as far as I recall) from certain editors, for it to always be a mistake. I think instead it is a cultural problem here amongst certain members that the community would do well to address. 109.153.244.21 20:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

One thing that would help would be for you to become a registered user. That is what makes it possible to communicate and helps us take contributions more seriously. It also helps if the name is not too frivolous, though that is not a requirement.
I see that one can find attestation for pair of marigolds so your contribution would be a good one. DCDuring TALK 22:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this community has a problem with biting newbies. WurdSnatcher (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we not have a notice that unsourced material may be challenged or removed? That might be a good start. It's hard to see why the patrollers like SB should be expected to do the work of verifying (or formally RFVing) every random unverified sense that gets added. -- Visviva (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I see no notice on the frame of the edit window that suggests anything of the kind, only the license links.
It seems that we really would like Wiktionary to be less wiki-like for anonymous users, imposing some kind of limits on their changes. Isn't that like what WP has, with some changes from some users being held in suspense until reviewed? DCDuring TALK 02:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The rubber gloves are Marigolds, not marigolds. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
According to what DCDuring mentioned above, pair of marigolds seems to be attested (both capitalized and uncapitalized). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with WurdSnatcher on this one. There seem to be a number of "experienced" editors on this page who never bother to explain their reverts of good-faith edits, especially to new editors, and get uptight when asked to. And we wonder why we're bad at attracting new editors... Purplebackpack89 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ungoliant and other admins have explained some of my errors to me, and I didn't made those mistakes again. I do find it very helpful when I'm told what I did wrong, since I usually do it out of ignorance. I would likely have been discouraged from editing, or would have repeated the same mistakes had my edits been undone with no explanation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think an explanation should be given. The revert tool shouldn't be used when the editor can be reasonably expected to take heart. —CodeCat 19:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, the auto-revert tool should really only be used for obvious bad-faith edits. If they're making a meaningful attempt, they deserve a real message explaining what's wrong. WurdSnatcher (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
+1. Revert should only be used for vandalism. Speed, schmeed. Purplebackpack89 01:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily only for vandalism, but for any edit where it is judged that an explanation will not have a significant effect on the editor. So it would also include editors who persistently make mistakes and bad edits and won't change their ways. —CodeCat 15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If a user is unregistered then it is very difficult to have meaningful communication. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The edit history isn't just for the benefit of the user being reverted; it will be seen by any other editor happening across the page. That's reason enough to make it helpful. Keith the Koala (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Italicizing the entry name of taxonomic names[edit]

I am just announcing an edit I made, since I was thinking about it for a while and decided to just do it today without discussing beforehand.

I made {{taxoninfl}} italicise the entry title of all entries for taxonomic names that use this template, so that:

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not good, because, unlike genera, families should not be italicised. Equinox 18:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Based on your comment, I've changed the template further to italicize the entry name only when i=1, just like the headword line. That way, Homo is italicized while Hominidae isn't. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
And that conflicts with the German use of Homo. Maybe I should just undo the change and leave all the affected entries without italics like they were? That said, the italicized name looks good on Homo sapiens, Acer rubrum, etc. and all the species names, though. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no good reason to have a pl parameter. All taxa are proper nouns. At rank of genus or lower they have the form of a singular Latin noun. At ranks higher than genus they have the form of a plural Latin noun. That is more or less part of the prescribed "grammar" of such names. Plural forms of generic and subgeneric rank taxa are not, strictly speaking part of the taxonomic name system. One could consider them to be borrowings into whatever language they are embedded. It would be interesting to see whether they appeared in New Latin genus and species descriptions, but arguably they would then be Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Other cases besides Homo#Translingual/Homo#German include all the entries for genera that are named after historical and mythological figures for which we now have or may have an entry. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
There are at least 179 exsiting entries for which English capitalized forms correspond to Translingual genus names. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
How many taxonomic names at rank of genus or lower did not have i=1? DCDuring TALK 18:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I reverted my edits to {{taxoninfl}} concerning italicization of entry names; now Homo sapiens and the like don't have the entry name italicized any more.
Concerning pl=, I used it with exactly 2 names: Homo sapiens=Homines sapientes and Pithecanthropus erectus=Pithecanthropi erecti. At least Homines sapientes is cited in English and Portuguese through Citations:Homo sapiens. DCDuring (talkcontribs), about your comment, particularly "Plural forms of generic and subgeneric rank taxa are not, strictly speaking part of the taxonomic name system. One could consider them to be borrowings into whatever language they are embedded." In the past, before I started editing Homo sapiens and Homines sapientes for a number of different reasons, there were English sections, an (odd) translation table and pronunciations; I moved all the applicable information into Translingual. Personally, I'd rather keep them that way, even if other entries for declensions of homo+sapiens are attestable (Hominis sapientis? Homini sapienti?), especially if those are found in running text in multiple languages. But it would be understandable if you and/or other people wanted to use different language sections for those like we do for CJK languages. You said the plurals are not strictly part of the system, for this reason I apologize since the current format with pl= makes it seem like the plurals really are part of the system. I propose keeping the plurals Translingual, at least until further discussion, while linking from the singular forms as Derived terms or the like, if you'd agree with that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: Why bother for two instances? I would have thought that {{mul-proper noun}} (which is not deprecated, just not my preference for taxonomic names) was perfect for that. Furthermore it is difficult for me to accept that plural and genitive forms are taxonomic names. The citations indicate that the terms are being used as plural for members of the group Homo spaiens, not for plurals of the group. Every taxonomic name is of a group, not of its members. One great advantage of limiting the use of {{taxoninfl}} to taxonomic names is that it can be used to identify taxonomic entries that are lemmas. Remember that the heterogeneity of Translingual makes the idea of a single class of Translingual lemmas useless for most practical purposes. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: You are most involved with entries for taxonomic names and I edit them only occasionally. I have the feeling I'm probably going to fold and revert quick if you say I've done something wrong with the templates or the entries. Still, there's a point I would like to discuss. About: "Every taxonomic name is of a group, not of its members." as well as "Plural forms of generic and subgeneric rank taxa are not, strictly speaking part of the taxonomic name system. One could consider them to be borrowings into whatever language they are embedded." Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. Even if taxonomic names are intended to be used as proper nouns representing entire groups, while this should be respected and informed in the entries, I'd argue that their separate usage as nouns is nothing special. Just like you can say: "I've found a member of Vulpes vulpes!", you could say "I've found a Vulpes vulpes!" and find plenty of citations of "noun" versions of taxonomic names like this in multiple languages. IMO, cited uses like this don't constitute a reason for having separate sections other than Translingual for any languages, let alone a great number of language sections just for cited noun senses for a given entry as they are found, especially if any plurals attested use the rules of Latin grammar in multiple languages. I'm not sure if we could have Translingual noun senses along with proper noun senses, or maybe not? My point is just that it does not seem to merit separate language sections just for this. What do you think? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that the way people use them is the same in every language and I have no idea how to get that information. I'm not even going to do it in English. What authoritative resource would we use for that? It I can't imagine doing the attestation. I'm not going to beat my brains out to incorporate relatively subtle variations which most users won't even notice. Our dictionary is rife with omission of much less subtle information in areas that are know to cause English language learners problems: ambiguous, erroneous, and misleading use of determiners in our definitions and failure to provide basic grammatical information ((un)countability), (in)transitivity, complements) come to mind.
In any event we would have to document the usage of taxonomic names in the communities that use them most. A very small share of taxonomic names even have vernacular-language homonyms that correspond to the taxa and we have entries for some of those, especially in horticulture, eg. azalea, andromeda, rhododendron. DCDuring TALK 02:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Daniel is right, though: while the authorities may prescribe that the names be used only for "the group X", many of them are well attested in multiple languages as terms for "a member of the group X", which can be used with the indefinite article and in the plural (see e.g. Citations:Homo sapiens, and google books:"un Homo sapiens"). - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I would think it more useful to have note on how folks borrow taxonomic terms into each language in general than to lexicalize a million or even a hundred instances of such borrowing.
All someone has to do is attest the pattern of usage (capitalization, pluralization, and other inflections in some languages) for each language in which the Translingual term is borrowed and used. I don't see any way around it. Today I looked at plurals of Virus. In some germanic languages the plural is Virusen. I don't think that belongs in Translingual as it reflects a pattern specific to at most a group of languages.
I certainly won't protest if someone chooses to do all of that, but I am more interested in having Translingual entries for purposes of disambiguating vernacular names; helping folks read scientific literature by providing etymology, pictures, and translations; and even providing gender to help folks with naming species. DCDuring TALK 04:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
A language-specific plural is evidence that the Latin/Translingual term has been borrowed into another language. (Jumi Vogler, Was der Humor für Sie tun kann, wenn in Ihrem Leben mal ..., 2014, page 20, has this example of Eindeutschung: Zumal damals das Warenangebot an Homo sapiensen noch relativ klein war.) If a Latinate plural, however, is used in as many languages as a Latinate singular, I don't see how only one of them could be excluded from the Translingual section short of saying "we copy what the authorities prescribe on this matter", which doesn't comport with descriptivism. Here's one way such information could be presented (note not only my added sense and usage note, but the plural which is already provided). If one wanted to weigh the scales a bit in favour of prescriptivism, one could even confine both things to the usage note, i.e. not add a second sense-line nor a plural to the headword-line, but mention both in the usage note.
I suppose if the 2 or 3 entries which currently have plurals are the only ones that pluralize and/or are used with the indefinite article to refer to members of a group / species / etc, and they only do so in 5 or 6 languages, one could argue it's easier to add 18 different language sections than to expand 3 Translingual sections... but if more entries than that pluralize, it becomes untenable, IMO, to require a myriad of different language sections rather than expand the Translingual section. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Is that how we handle borrowing from English? DCDuring TALK 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It isn't the way we handle borrowings into English, which we show as English whether or not there is any alteration in the term, eg, sang-froid. Wouldn't we need to include multiple pronunciations in a Translingual entry? DCDuring TALK 12:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Why even keep taxonomic names here anyway? I thought species: is for that. Keφr 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I won't invoke our slogan. Wikispecies generally does not bother with obsolete taxa or with the gender and etymology of any taxa. (Few other taxonomic databases bother with gender and etymology either.) They also do not always have entries that correspond to well-attested vernacular names including those we already have, which is the purpose of the lists at User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa. Wikipedia doesn't bother with gender and is very uneven about covering etymology and obsolete taxa.
That we don't provide pronunciations or translations of taxa is a result of our decisions, not whether such would be useful to users. Our decision about translations is apparently based on the perceived need to reflect how native speakers of various languages actually pronounce the taxon, not how it ought to be pronounced, though that is what users seem to want. Our decision not to have translations seems as much to be that a vernacular name could be viewed as a monolingual synonym, as a translation, or as a term identifying members of the group named by the taxon, so we didn't want to depart from the gem-like precision of our conceptual model of language to include them. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Going the other way around, what is so special and different about Wikispecies, then? Would you say that Wikispecies can be totally replaced by Wiktionary's coverage of species? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: They have some big offsetting advantages relative to us, but few relative to outside databases.
  1. They have vernacular names in multiple languages in many species and genus entries. We have decide to exclude non-English names on the taxon page, relying on the English vernacular name, which may not exist, eg, for species that don't occur in English-speaking lands, especially plants.
  2. They pay more attention to the authorities behind each name. We don't, which on a small number of occasions has led to some confusion.
  3. They have about 20 or more times as many taxon entries as we do.
  4. Their average page is better linked to external sources. But for some reason they don't link to WP or Commons very much. Our best entries are better linked to outside sources than theirs (useful for determining gender, checking consensus on circumscription and placement).
One other disadvantage they have is that they don't do much (translations?) that other databases don't do and most other databases do something they don't. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Some comments about the utility and challenges of Wikispecies:
  1. For a long time, a single sysop ran the entire operation his way, 24/7, overruling anyone else making edits there. A lot of animosity developed between this sysop, other sysops, and some other wiki projects. That user has since been banned, but this also means that style and content are a bit unstable as the community finds its footing again.
  2. Wikispecies goes in heavy for sourcing the publication, description, revision, and circumscription of taxa. This often has no bearing on the use of the word, but is of vital importance to researchers.
  3. Wikispecies has a highly navigable taxonomic tree built into every entry, such that taxonomic changes can be easily implemented without having to re-edit every affected entry.
  4. Commons links to Wikispecies whenever there is an entry to match a Commons category. Some Wikipedias (such as fr) also build in a link to Wikispecies from their taxoboxes. This isn't universal, though, in either direction, in part because the classification systems in use at different Wikipedias does not always match.
  5. Further, since Wikidata now controls interwiki links between the Wikipedias, the link situation has deteriorated. The editing of interwiki links between botanical taxa, for example, is under the control and supervision of User:Brya, who has been banned here, at the English Wikipedia, and at the Dutch Wiktionary and Wikipedia, for contentious edits, sockpuppetry, and a number of other problems. Her idiosyncratic ideas have led to a fragmentation of data items on Wikidata so that identical circumscriptions of taxa given different names, attributions, or rank on different Wikipedias are no longer interlinked. And links will only exist if everything about the taxa match exactly (and even then I've come across baffling counterexmaples).
So, we're a long way from useful interlinking between taxon entries on different projects. It is therefore difficult to avoid or streamline any duplication of content or redundancy of data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't italicize the headword lines of taxonomic names. Acer rubrum should not show the headword line in italics. Note they are translingual, and you have not shown that they are universally used in italics in multiple languages. Please undo your changes while the discussion is pending. --Dan Polansky (talk)

cs-noun and animacy[edit]

Can someone please undo the recent edits of {{cs-noun}} to provide for pseudo-genders m-an and m-in. They are intended to mark "an" for "animate" and "in" for inanimate. Animacy is not gender and should not be marked as part of a gender. Thanks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

See my other comment ... I think rather than asking for undoing this change, if you really object to the general concept of having "gender" include "pseudo-genders" then you should (a) propose an alternative, (b) open a more general discussion about how to handle this. As I mentioned, this is far from the only place that "gender" has been co-opted to include other gender-like properties. Benwing (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not seen pseudo-genders in Czech templates. I do not watch the template situation outsite of Czech closely. Which other comment should I see and where? As for an alternative, that is obvious: create an animacy parameter. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
We have added an animate and inanimate parameter to our masculine template on the French wiktionary. It is most useful to distinguish nouns, compare French entry kohoutek with local entry kohoutek. --Diligent (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with creating the animacy parameter, among others it could also enable adding the entries into special animacy categories. However, I strongly oppose removing the "pseudo-genders" (as Dan calls it) before such a parameter is added. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky I was referring to my comment on WT:GP, where you've also responded. Benwing (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Normalization of entries 2[edit]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-05/Normalization of entries failed. See also at the end of the vote my comments about the result of the vote, which I'm cool with, since the affected policy is still imperfect. The vote proposed having Wiktionary:Normalization of entries (WT:NORM) as an official policy alongside WT:CFI and WT:ELE. WT:NORM deals with aspects of formatting that are invisible to the user but are expected to be standardized nonetheless, such as whitespaces, spaces between == ==, the placement of interwikis at the end of the page and the placement of categories at the end of the language section.

The list of items currently in the policy was developed from this extensive 2006 thread, which shaped the wiki code of our entries as we know to this date with the major role of User:AutoFormat (2007–2010) and I proposed to be officialized through this discussion from May 2015 with 13 polls. Controversial, outdated or undiscussed items were removed from the list and moved to here. Continuing from where the previous discussion left off, I thought of 2 more polls to address issues that were raised in the vote. I feel it's a good idea to keep asking questions until the policy is just right. --Daniel Carrero (talk)


Poll 14[edit]

Proposal:
Having WT:NORM only with rules that affect the wiki code of the entry and are invisible to the readers.
Rationale:
Currently, most rules listed in WT:NORM are invisible, (such as whitespace, line breaks, spaces between == ==, spaces after * and interwikis at the end of the list), so it does not matter if the rules are followed or not by editors, the page would look the same to readers. If there are any rules that affect the layout of the pages, they should be kept in WT:ELE, not WT:NORM. Use the comments of this poll to discuss exactly rules can be affected by this poll.

Comments
I believe the rules that exist in the current version of WT:NORM and can be removed for affecting the layout of the entries are, specifically:

  • Language names should not be linked
  • Translation sections: Markup such as gender should be provided within the {{t}}/{{t+}} template, except for qualifiers, which should use {{qualifier}}
  • ---- before each language heading except the first

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Daniel. I'm unclear as to what you mean exactly by "invisible to the reader". Can you spell out which rules aren't invisible? As I mentioned, I had two objections. One concerns the insistence that categories need to be put at the end of the language section instead of at the end of an etymology subsection; I assume this is "invisible to the reader"? The other is about only one headword line per section, which simply doesn't work well for some Arabic entries. I assume this is "visible to the reader"? Benwing (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    Hi Benwing. After you sent this message, since no one besides myself had voted for this poll yet, I've changed the whole text of the poll; maybe it does look clearer now?
    After you gave your reasons for opposing both rules of "only one headword line per section" and "categories need to be put at the end of the language section", I simply removed them from WT:NORM and added them to Wiktionary_talk:Normalization_of_entries#Removed_items until further discussion. But, since following these rules does affect how the entry look like to readers, I'd say these are "visible" rules and thus I don't think they should be applicable in WT:NORM anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    I'm striking this poll. I edited WT:NORM so that all rules of this policy concern whitespace, blank lines, etc. and removed everything else that changes the layout of the entry, thus is "visible" to the reader of the entry. I don't think there's any reason to leave any rules at WT:NORM if they can be placed in WT:ELE instead. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Poll 15[edit]

Proposal:
WT:NORM should be mandatory for bots only.

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support DCDuring TALK 20:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support With the two issues I object to removed, I have no problem supporting this and I already try to follow rules of this sort in any case in my bot changes. Benwing (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

  • I assume that we are not compelling every bot to implement all aspects of WT:NORM, but only to make its changes in conformity with it, so that the immediate neighborhood of each of its changes conforms. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    That is correct; what you said is what I had in mind too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Poll 16[edit]

Between an image and content that follows, should there be a blank line or not?

Examples with blank line:

==English==
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

===Alternative forms===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

* form1
* form2

===Etymology===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

{{term|example|lang=en}} + {{term|example|lang=en}}

===Pronunciation===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

* {{a|foo}} {{IPA|/example/|lang=en}}
* {{audio|example.ogg|Audio (US)|lang=en}}

===Noun===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

{{en-noun}}

====Synonyms====
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

* synonym1

====Usage notes====
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

In all examples, this example is exemplified by a process of exemplification.

===See also===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]

* something

Examples without blank line:

==English==
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
===Alternative forms===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
* form1
* form2

===Etymology===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
{{term|example|lang=en}} + {{term|example|lang=en}}

===Pronunciation===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
* {{a|foo}} {{IPA|/example/|lang=en}}
* {{audio|example.ogg|Audio (US)|lang=en}}

===Noun===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
{{en-noun}}

====Synonyms====
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
* synonym1

====Usage notes====
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
In all examples, this example is exemplified by a process of exemplification.

===See also===
[[File:Example 1.jpg|thumb|250px|upright|Description.]]
* something

Poll 16 - Comments[edit]

Rather than having support/oppose/abstain options, I would like to discuss what looks better in each case.

Personally, my opinions are:

  • Yes - I believe it's especially important that we do insert a blank line between the image and a new section that follows below the image (===Noun===, for example), because if there were no image, a blank line would precede the new section anyway.
  • No - don't insert a blank line between the image and a headword template. (in cases where the image is between ===Noun=== and {{en-noun}}, for example, just don't insert a blank line anywhere) That because, in my mind, the headword template is sort of the extension of the POS heading.
  • In all other cases, I'd probably be fine either way, but I'm leaning towards: yes, have the space in all situations, it looks better and a bit easier to read, by properly separating one type of content from the other.

Thoughts? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't the added spaces in some cases change the appearance that results? DCDuring TALK 19:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @DCDuring No, not that I'm aware of. I tested both versions of the whole code that I used as an example for this poll and the presence or lack of spaces did not change anything in the appearance of the entry. In addition, the poll 6 from May 2015 was specifically about having a image or a {{wikipedia}} box between two headings. In that poll, I addressed a similar question about spaces changing the appearance of the page. My reply was: "[E]xtra vertical space only appears if we use a broken template with extra newlines at the end of the code before <includeonly/>, I presume? [...]" and I mentioned five second rule and feminism as two entries which use images with spacing without breaking anything. Also, the results of the poll I mentioned were 0-6-0-2, meaning 6 votes supporting the spacing, no votes supporting the space-less version; no opposes and 2 abstains. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • When would it make sense to add a picture under Alternative forms or Synonyms?--Dixtosa (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was just testing various possibilities for the code. You can ignore them if that'd be better. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncommon and exotic words in Translations section[edit]

Someone added German Weltnetz and Zwischennetz to the "Translations" section of Internet: see diff. These words are hardly used, and the usual German word for Internet is simply Internet. The presence of these words in the "Translations" section suggests that they are normal German translations of the English term Internet.

What should one do with them?

  • Delete them? As English to German translations they are useless and misleading.
  • Add labels? Such as hardly used?

Wiktionary:Translations doesn't say much about this problem.

See also:

--MaEr (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete them. Due to the crammed nature of translation tables, it’s not worth presenting information of such limited usefulness. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Some native speakers may prefer such terms to recent-vintage borrowed terms. Is one of the German terms noticeably more common? DCDuring TALK 15:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
See German WP, which argues for the terms being uncommon and politically fraught. Also Internetz seems as common as either of the above, if not more so. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree about deleting. I present archaic, dialectal, colloquial, uncommon forms in the main FL entry, under ===Synonyms===. --Vahag (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete from translations, never hear about those words. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, everybody! I will remove these "translations" from now on, or move them to the foreign language entry, as Vahagn suggested.
I would like to add this suggestion to Wiktionary:Translations. Does one need a formal poll or decision for this? --MaEr (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


They should be deleted except when there is no normal, common form. Right?--Dixtosa (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen things like {{t|fo|bar}} {{qualifier|rare}} (which yields "bar (rare)"), and with other qualifiers. (Ping.)​—msh210 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ISBN - request for more opinions[edit]

There is a discussion at Wiktionary talk:About Czech#Rejzek 2015 whether an ISBN parameter can stay in the reference template {{R:Rejzek 2015}} or whether it should be removed. After several reverts were made at the template I would like to ask the community for more opinions to decide the issue. Thanks. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning, for a Beer parlour discussion: ISBN is visual noise, and makes the user experience worse for people like me. It is inessential for identification. It is inessential for search purposes. It is not used in the references sections of multiple English books that I own and that I checked. I prefer that the use of ISBN in reference templates is avoided. I also prefer that it is avoided in attesting quotations, but that is less urgent since these are hidden in the mainspace by default. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What we could do is create an appendix with references. The reference template would link to a location in the appendix, like Appendix:References#Rejzek_2015. That location would provide more extensive information, including the ISBN, and maybe multiple relevant searches, and links related to the reference, including one to Wikipedia. Book identifiers other than ISBN could be provided as well, if wished. Thus, we could keep the appearance of the reference template in the mainspace short and simple, while providing extensive detail to those readers who need or want it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
An ISBN uniquely identifies a particular book, in theory and usually in practice. I fail to see how a few extra characters makes that much difference, but it does make searching a hundred times easier. As Dan Polansky points out, one can type in http://www.google.com/search?q=2015+%C4%8Cesk%C3%BD+etymologick%C3%BD+slovn%C3%ADk+Rejzek; or as I point out, one can click on the ISBN which Wikimedia helpfully links to various book sites, no guessing what values to feed into Google.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What Prosfilaes said.​—msh210 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the ISBN should be included when possible. It's essential information, and the comment about visual noise is just moot. —CodeCat 12:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have always felt the ISBN parameter as noise wherever it occurs on content pages. When I accidentally click on it, I wish I hadn't and I curse those who made it possible for a time-waste (waiting for the linked-to site to allow the back button to take effect in a controlled way) like that to occur. It is also misleading when it refers to a specific binding and edition of a work that is available in numerous forms. When the reference is to something that at least provides something like full text, the noise is worth it. Otherwise, kill with fire. DCDuring TALK 12:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
"When the reference is to something that at least provides something like full text, the noise is worth it." If I understood this correctly, despite your criticism of ISBN, when citation is linked to the visualization on Google Books it's okay? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
On mature reflection, I think I'd rather have a link from the repetition of the headword or from a page number. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's useful information to have, but I agree it's "visual noise". Might be good to have a little hyperlink (to some standard ISBN lookup location? Wikipedia uses one, IIRC) but not to display the actual number on screen. Equinox 13:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Great idea, IMHO. Having the text "ISBN" there with a hyperlink to IBSN look up location would be a huge improvement. And it would make all sides relatively happy, wouldn't it? In case of Rejzek, it would look like this: ISBN. When you click that link, it takes you to what is transparently marked up as Special:BookSources/9788073353933. No one can possibly argue that the IBSN was not provided to the readers who want to search by it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I, too, think Equinox's idea is grand, but the link text probably should be something other than "ISBN". After all, the running text "1997, John Smith, Some Book Title, ISBN, page 37" doesn't really make much sense. Arguably the link should be from the book title itself (as I think someone suggested above); the only problem with that is that we sometimes link to the book's w: article from the book title. Or, arguably the link should be from the page number (as DCD suggested above); but we often link to bgc from the page number (directly to the right page, which special:booksources does not). I'm just spelling out some issues; I don't have a good solution, I'm afraid.​—msh210 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
ISBN is only for most books published since 1970 (1967 with some conversion adjustments). It is not the same as EAN, though it can be converted to EAN. It is most relevant for those who would purchase a book, as libraries don't always make it easy to find book from its ISBN.
The ISBN is overly specific in that it specifies particular stock-keeping units for book retailers, not specific texts, which may be available in multiple ISBNs.
It is the display of "ISBN" followed by the ISBN number that is my core problem. Can we not have less clutter while achieving the same link as a result?
I would much prefer that we standardize on the display of desired links, of which I can think only of two at the moment. The more desirable of the two is a link to a particular page of the reference work (or database) available online. The second is the special:booksources link. For the link to text available online: page xx or a display of the headword or other term linked to; and something analogous for the link to special:booksource. One possibility is that we link to special:booksources using the the title of the work and link to any WP article via "WP" or something similar. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That last sounds good to me fwiw.​—msh210 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit extended[edit]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit has been extended. Some concern was expressed that this and/or other votes were poorly advertised, so let this serve as advertisement. Who has participated in the previous vote and discussions, or in discussions of this vote, without voting (even to abstain) in this vote yet? @Angr comes to mind. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider this extension legitimate. It seems like bullying over the result, with the effect of cowing editors to change positions in order to achieve a different result. bd2412 T 18:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if anyone changed position on this. The problem is the process not the result. But to accept the result is to accept the fruit of a poisoned tree. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
One editor already has. Unfortunately, this tells us nothing about the merits of providing more information as a dictionary, and everything about keeping up appearances. The 2/3 bean-counting requirement is not set in stone in any case. Where the question is one of presenting a more informative lexicon, a vocal minority opposing for no reason or based on factually flawed premises should not prevail. bd2412 T 18:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that oppose votes with no rationale should be disqualified? Or were you thinking of something more nuanced? —CodeCat 18:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose votes with no rationale should certainly be given less weight. Otherwise, we open the process up to opposition by rote, rather than for a reason. bd2412 T 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea for users to start trying to discount votes that they don't like just because the voters didn't spell out explicitly "I do not agree with the rational offered for doing what this vote proposes to do; I oppose doing it". If you do want to suggest such disqualifications with any veneer of propriety, you'll have to also discount support votes that offer no rational, like Stephen's old support vote, Saltmarsh's, or SemperBlotto's. - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The first five oppose votes look to me like someone's idea of a joke. bd2412 T 18:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose votes without rationale come across as "I just don't like it"; there's no recourse for editors to come to a consensus except by discussing more (which vote pages are not really meant/good for). Wikipedia even has a page w:WP:I just don't like it suggesting that such argumentation should be avoided. So can we really take a vote seriously if everyone is just voting for preference without substantiating anything? For political voting that works, but not for a community based on consensus. We have no coalition and opposition here, nor should we. If each side just uses "I don't like it" to the other side, that isn't consensus, that's just tyranny of the majority and grudging acceptance by the minority. —CodeCat 18:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
A user who favoured the passage of the vote didn't mind extending it repeatedly for as long as it took to obtain the appearance of a majority in favour of the vote, but now objects to extending the vote any further than that because he thinks the further extension will result in it being clear that there isn't a (passage-sufficient) majority in favour of the proposal after all. And he suggests changing the customary threshold for passage or disqualifying "oppose" votes so that the vote could still pass without consensus. Hmm... can you see why people are suspicious of the legitimacy of the vote? In the past (for years, vide Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline), when a vote showed that there was no consensus for something, the vote was closed at the scheduled time as "no consensus" (or simply as "fails", because votes require consensus to pass). If necessary/desired, another vote was held later after further discussion and advertisement. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have no problem closing RfDs (which have no maximum time) with "kept no consensus to delete", ie, status quo ante. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Requiring consensus to delete is a position that favors the inclusion of more information in the dictionary, unless there is a strong sense that the information should be excluded. The vote at issue here is also to include more information in the dictionary - reliably attested information found in books in print (although one opposer would prefer to limit inclusion because those books don't come from "a publishing house that has published writings of eminent Indologists", and another is solely concerned with the possibility that we will rely on uses from websites, which is not this proposal at all). bd2412 T 18:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It is NOT any Wiktionary policy to "favor the inclusion of more information in the dictionary" without limit. That may be your desire and you may feel that History is on your side and therefore you are justified in using any means you choose to achieve your desire, but not everyone agrees with your views and certainly not with the use of any means, whatever principles of fairness or "due process" they violate. DCDuring TALK 19:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? BD2412 was just observing that the way RFD works, it skews Wiktionary's preference in favour of keeping. A supermajority is required to delete, therefore purely by statistics, content is easier to keep than to delete, and will naturally lead to keeping more than deleting. It has nothing to do with any explicit Wiktionary policy, only a consequence of our existing ones (insofar as RFD's rules are policy). —CodeCat 19:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Correct. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring We had a vote on whether to default to excluding romanizations. That vote failed. The consequence is that anyone can enter any transliteration, and whether it is kept or not is up to the whims of RfD (or VfD, if it is entered without citations). My proposal would avoid those disputes for a limited class of transliterations. bd2412 T 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I am concerned about process. BD has no trouble closing RfDs, which have no time limit, rather than keeping them open because he apparently likes the result. When it comes time to close a vote, which has a definite time limit he has no objection to extending the vote, apparently because he prefers to see a positive outcome. The common element is the process selected is one that favors his desired outcome. An effort to mount a principled needs to overcome the indisputable appearance of the manipulation of process. I don't doubt that all participants believe that the manipulation of process is justified. I find it hard to believe that they don't think the process is being manipulated. I think that is betrayed by the proposal that someone should to assume the role of a judge and throw out the result of a vote based on no policy or practice. It seems that the idea is to achieve one's objective by any means necessary and practical. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Your premises are factually wrong. From WT:RFD: "Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'". I have always abided by those time limits. I have often closed votes as against my own stated preference; no one has ever asserted otherwise. Can you show me a single instance where I closed a vote early because I 'liked the result'? bd2412 T 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The above by DCDuring, is in poor taste, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I considered the repeated extensions, starting with the first one on this second incarnation (at which the vote was 5-5-1), to be worse than poor taste, to be manipulative of the process. The proposal had failed once before. Why not just end it? DCDuring TALK 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
1) If you deemed it worse than poor taste, it was your moral duty to say so, which you did not do. You even voted after the 1st extension (diff), although you could have abstained with the comment "I object to the extension" or the like. You did not do that. 3) All I am saying is give votes a chance. Give them a better chance. Recent experience shows that more people do come to votes when they are extended. Recent experience with multiple extensions of votes is a positive one, as far as I am concerned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to prove otherwise, here are five RfD discussions where I supported or would have preferred deleting an entry, and closed the discussion as keep or no consensus: Talk:Mobil, Talk:police protection, Talk:bacon and eggs, Talk:am I right or am I right, Talk:big balls. bd2412 T 20:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That only shows that YOUR VIEW on the principle over your preference in an individual case. How many times have you exercised discretion to delete something not patently garbage? —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs).
As I noted on your talk page, there is no discretion involved. If there is consensus to delete, I delete. If not, I close as no consensus, as required by the page instructions. There are also several occasions where I have deleted an entry, per consensus, where I would have preferred to keep it. For example, Talk:dolemite. bd2412 T 22:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I never paid attention to the extensions until after the vote was properly closed and they were raised as an issue; however, the latest one has only yielded opposition based on an apparent misunderstanding of the proposal itself, which is actually much more limited then the new opposition suggests. Currently, well-attested Sanskrit transliterations are included as words in English, and that is absurd, and the point of allowing those transliterations to be called Sanskrit. Opposition at this point seems like an excuse to bash the procedure, not deal with the responsibility of informing readers. bd2412 T 18:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I extended the vote again since I consider the closing illegitimate and irregular, and I said so on the day of the closure on the talk page of the closer. This discussion and previous ones confirm that multiple editors see this the same way I did. I repeatedly extended the vote knowing that I must not stop as soon as a threshold is reached since that would create accusations of selection bias; and it did create such accusations. Notice that, based on my preference and my cast vote, my preferred outcome would result from keeping the vote closed and not interfering. It must be obvious that I do not act so as to convince more people to oppose; I wish more people to support, as I did. I act on principle, as best as I can. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche I've voted now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No LDL for sign languages?[edit]

Is there any particular reason that LDL is restricted to spoken languages? It seems strange that sign languages can't be cited that way, after all they're languages as well and there really aren't that many texts written in sign language. -- Liliana 08:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it restricted to spoken languages?​—msh210 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
WT:CFI#Number of citations says, "For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements:". Perhaps whoever wrote that meant "natural languages", since constructed languages are subject to their own CFI. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah. The "spoken" comes from [[Wt:Votes/2012-06/Well Documented Languages]], where it was part of the original version of the page by BenjaminBarrett12, and where it seems to have gone unnoticed.​—msh210 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
And that came from [[Wt:Beer parlour/2012/June#New update to languages with limited documentation]], where, too, the "spoken" appears to have gone unnoticed.​—msh210 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd support changing "spoken" to "natural" so that sign languages are also treated as LDLs. We do have some specific criteria for sign languages, although they are not on WT:CFI proper but on a page it links to from a clearly-marked section: Wiktionary:About sign languages#Criteria_for_inclusion. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I purposefully left sign languages out of the LDL because they have their own rules for inclusion as shown in the CFI, which references the sign CFI Wiktionary:About sign languages.
The sign language CFI says: 'Unlike spoken languages, sign languages are rarely written outside of reference materials and academic publications. Thus, the "clearly widespread use" condition of Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion (CFI) is considered to be met by any sign that is used by multiple independent deaf communities, and the "usage in permanently recorded media" condition includes any visual media that has been widely distributed, including DVDs, broadcast television, and sign language dictionaries.' I have not been active on Wiktionary for some time, so I might be out of date, but I would not be in favor of adding sign languages to the LDL.
As to Angr's point about natural languages, the CFI page includes a link to Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Well_documented_languages which specifically notes that only approved constructed languages are acceptable.
A very picky follow-up WRT to Angr's point. The number of citations requirement says: "For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements:" Somebody might argue that a spoken, living constructed language that is not in the list of "languages well documented on the Internet" therefore requires only one use or mention. However, constructed languages are specifically addressed later on the page, so I don't think this is an issue of concern. -BB12 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion about Category:place names[edit]

Category:Place_names should have "Place names by territorial entities" not directly "► Place names of England" in it, because otherwise specific categories will easily overshadow other meaningful subcategories.

Also, it could have "Hydronyms" as a subcategory containing categories like lakes, rivers, seas and entries directly that are neither of these.--Dixtosa (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Re "Place names by territorial entities", I agree. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Benwing for admin[edit]

Benwing (talkcontribs) has accepted my nomination for adminship. I think most of us know his great contributions, abilities and character (in terms of his presence, activities and interactions with others). Let's support him at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-07/User:Benwing for admin! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Benwing's user page says (s)he is on wikibreak as of last September, but Special:Contributions/Benwing suggests otherwise. If the wikibreak is over, please remove that statement. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good point. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed that; it was out of date. Benwing (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Main page of the app[edit]

The main page of the Wiktionary app just shows the (English-language) Word of the Day. Can/should it also display the Foreign Word of the Day? If so, how do we implement that? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Instructions for Mobile homepage formatting. --Panda10 (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that says that anything appearing on the mobile main page should be tagged with mf-XXX, but when I look at the code of our main page, not even the (English) Word of the Day has that tag, so I can't figure out how the mobile main page knows to show it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Right click on the page and select View Page Source. Search for mf- and you will see that the word of the day has an id=mf-wotd next to it. I'm not sure why this is not visible on the edit screen. --Panda10 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I figured it out: the id=mf-wotd is in Template:WOTD, not directly in the Main Page. However, since {{WOTD}} and {{FWOTD}} have totally different setups, I can't figure out where to put the id=mf-wotd to get the Foreign Word of the Day tagged correctly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I added the tag. What else needs to be done? --WikiTiki89 15:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nothing, I guess. I just checked both my phone and my tablet and it looks good on both. Thanks! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[edit]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

{{huh}}[edit]

I created {{huh}} here because {{cleanup}} would not adequately explain the problem; the way wikipedia uses {{huh}} would have explained what I wanted to convey. I suggest making a template similar to the way it is used on Wikipedia.68.148.186.93 00:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We operate differently here from Wikipedia. If you feel like {{cleanup}} is inadequate, it's better to start a new discussion about the term in question at the Tea room. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Transliteration of Ξ[edit]

split off from an old general discussion of transliteration at Wiktionary:Grease pit/2014/June#Automatic transcription appears to override manual transcription?

@LlywelynII has pointed out that Wiktionary's idiosyncratic automatic transliteration of Ξ as ks should be changed to x; I support this, as it is how every other authority I can find on Greek transliterates the character (viz ELOT, UN, ISO 843, ALA-LC, BGN/PCGN). It is also how other etymological dictionaries transliterate the character (look at the etymology of climax in Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins, and OxfordDictionaries). - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: Yes, I'd support this change, too. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
My preference is for ks, because we also transliterate ps. —CodeCat 18:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't take your point. ⟨ps⟩ is the standard transliteration and always has been. ⟨ks⟩ isn't and never has been. It's not even useful since ⟨x⟩ simply is a /ks/ sound; indeed, it's actively misleading since ⟨κσ⟩ is actually ⟨ks⟩.
Now, I'm fully on board keeping ⟨χ⟩ as ⟨kh⟩ because it has nothing to do with English's /t͡ʃ/ noise and even support treating ⟨φ⟩ differently once other scholars do as well. But it's not a biggie either way. We can quickly link to a full Greek entry and the Greek pronunciation template does a good job presenting the changing pronunciations over time. — LlywelynII 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If there hadn't been any standards, I would have preferred ks. Now we just have to decide between being less confusing or following the standards. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Why? English has a letter for the sound /ks/ and it's ⟨x⟩. What do you think is confusing about it? The transliteration is into English, not IPA. Further, how do you feel that it isn't confusing to use an idiosyncratic standard which conflates ⟨ξ⟩ and ⟨κσ⟩? — LlywelynII 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Because transliterations don't only go by English. For example, we use x to transliterate Russian /x/ and Persian /χ/. Not to mention that it looks too much like the Greek χ. --WikiTiki89 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For the same reason it's not confusing to conflate ψ and πσ. —CodeCat 00:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, I support the change, even though it is somewhat off-topic to talk about romanization schemes for modern Greek (ELOT & al.) when dealing with ancient Greek. (All the romanization schemes for ancient Greek also use ⟨x⟩, though, so it's no biggie.)
I'll take the opportunity, though, to note that once you saw every single transliteration scheme backed me up there was absolutely nothing helpful in maintaining broken transliterations by repeatedly reverting my proper corrections. If Wiktionary doesn't have a wp:iar analogue, you need one. We're here to improve the entries, not just make ourselves feel big by screwing with people and maintaining errors on procedural grounds. There isn't even a policy that the term template must always be used in every etymology section. You just felt like that. It's nuts. — LlywelynII 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we're here to improve the entries, but reasonable people can disagree about how to achieve that, and reasonable people can do things for other reasons than to "make ourselves feel big by screwing with people". There's a difference between argumentation and argumentativeness, between logic and ad hominem. Please try to stay on the right side of it. You're very sure you're right, and you want everyone to let you do things your own way, but then, the same could be said of this guy. He would have said it was all about improving the entries, too.
Now, to the merits: there are reasons for the current transliteration scheme that have nothing to do with anyone being dropped on their head when they were little. X is open to confusion: not only does it look like χ, but it's been used to represent it, for instance in beta code. There's no doubt about what "ks" represents. It's also a matter of being consistent in using digraphs for both the consonant + s series and the aspirated consonant series. Your way has merit, but it's not the only way that makes sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Derivation categories for multiple homonymous morphemes[edit]

Many languages have morphemes that are spelled and/or pronounced the same, but have different origins and different uses. An example is the English -er: it has a variety of unrelated uses. Currently, {{suffix}}, {{affix}} and family would put words in the same category even if they are derived from different underlying suffixes. Consequently, the categories are a bit of a mess, just see Category:English words suffixed with -er. The same is now also happening with PIE root categories; some roots are actually two distinct but homonymic roots, and it's necessary to distinguish which of them a word came from. I think this should be fixed somehow, but I'm not sure in what way. —CodeCat 21:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

NORM vote 2[edit]

I revised WT:NORM based on comments/criticism from the first vote, then created Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-07/Normalization of entries 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Model pages[edit]

I have been trying to rewrite Wiktionary:About Greek for some time (years), the current page is at least 5 years out of date and has not been revised to reflect changes. Since a picture is worth a thousand words I'm thinking of creating model pages to illustrate how entries should be structured - obviating the need to update About Greek very often. These would be protected, categorised, and limited in number to a bare minimum. I would welcome any comments.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 10:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Voseo forms[edit]

I would like to fix up all the voseo redlinks, but am unsure if these conjugations are correct since they're also missing from the Spanish Wiktionary. Could someone check these before I add them? Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by Codeofdusk (talkcontribs) at 00:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC).

I'd say that all the regular -ar verbs are conjugated fine. A few other ones might be tricky. I changed a couple things on one template, which suggests that there could be more errors in others. Also, I'm gonna make a few more missing voseo categories. I'll let you know. --A230rjfowe (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a new one at Category:Spanish verbs having voseo red links in their conjugation table (regular -ar verbs) for verbs using Template:es-conj-ar. You might want to start with them. --A230rjfowe (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Will fix those when I'm able. Codeofdusk (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Done, but the categories need to be updated.Codeofdusk (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Could we create a Voseo redlinks category for -car and -gar verbs? Codeofdusk (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Done: Category:Spanish verbs having voseo red links in their conjugation table (-car) and Category:Spanish verbs having voseo red links in their conjugation table (-gar) --A230rjfowe (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What does a Healthy Community look like to you?[edit]

Community Health Cover art News portal.png

Hi,
The Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a new learning campaign. The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community. Share your views and/or create a drawing and take a chance to win a Wikimania 2016 scholarship! Join the WMF as we begin a conversation about Community Health. Contribute a drawing or answer the questions on the campaign's page.

Why get involved?[edit]

The world is changing. The way we relate to knowledge is transforming. As the next billion people come online, the Wikimedia movement is working to bring more users on the wiki projects. The way we interact and collaborate online are key to building sustainable projects. How accessible are Wikimedia projects to newcomers today? Are we helping each other learn?
Share your views on this matter that affects us all!
We invite everyone to take part in this learning campaign. Wikimedia Foundation will distribute one Wikimania Scholarship 2016 among those participants who are eligible.

More information[edit]


Happy editing!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015