Wiktionary:Information desk/2017/August

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← July 2017 · August 2017 · September 2017 → · (current)

Unsourced commentary in definition of -ful[edit]

I'm new to Wiktionary's editing. I came across the page for -ful where this definition was given:

"1. Used to form adjectives from nouns. An adjective derived by this suffix implies a thorough and certain possession of the quality of that noun, not a metaphorical fullness with it by degree or quantity. One who is wakeful is fully awake, not frequently waking; what is changeful is uncertain, not transformed; what is harmful may do a single and a mild injury."

This distinction made by this commentary was not clear to me, so I checked established dictionaries for their definitions of -ful. They say things like:

Given that such a commentary is not actually in accord with authoritative dictionaries, should such a commentary (inserted by a currently inactive user about 10 years ago) be left untouched, or removed, or marked as requiring a source? What's Wiktionary's policy for such cases? Thanks for any comments.

--Creamyhorror (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree, it seems unnecessarily convoluted and is difficult to understand. —Stephen (Talk) 21:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. I've taken the liberty to replace the commentary with a more succinct and general definition. I do wonder what the policy on such cases of debatable definitions should be. Creamyhorror (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

pored versus poured[edit]

most spellings I have seen recently use the term pored as in: he pored over the documents to find the information he needed. But if I remember correctly in the past the proper use was poured. Has the proper use actually changed or does this just reflect a lack of editing?

You don't remember correctly. Pore has always been correct, with pour only used because so many people are unfamiliar with pore and use the only spelling they know. Only time will tell if pour will completely replace pore for this meaning, but, in the meanwhile, purists will definitely fault you for using pour. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-human language[edit]

Are there any non-human languages included on Wiktionary? An example would be Gorilla Sign Language, or possibly some form of dolphin language, or something. But I don't think any animal languages would be attestable. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @PseudoSkull: I don't know why they would be un-attestable in principle: the findings on teaching non-human animals to use sign language are published. I think the problem is that with that example, there wouldn't be a community of signers. When it comes to whalesong or dolphin echoes, I simply don't think humans know what they mean. If there is some method of transcribing (e.g.) birdsong and writing it out then we could certainly include it in an appendix. The ISO code would be zxx. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Does "cat language" exist?[edit]

I feel like when cats meow in different pitches, that can be sort of idiolectal. If a cat meows in a certain way, it means "Please give me food.", a type of loud and angry-sounding meow means "I'll hurt you if you don't get away!" or "I'm going to hurt you!", certain meows tell you "I don't like that thing that's bothering me." (whatever it is, such as "Stop snuggling me so close!"), but I still feel like the exact sound depends on the cat and it isn't universal.

Why don't people consider certain tones of meows to be "linguistics"? Yes, their meows are a lot simpler than our speech, simply because cats are only focused on a few things while we humans are focused on a lot. Cats want to lay around, hunt moving objects, eat food, beg for food, drink water, beg for water, sleep, piss, shit, whine about something bothering them, sharpen their claws, defining and enforcing their territory, etc., while we humans... You know all the millions of things humans can and have done. Anyway, you get the idea. Why aren't cat meows considered a language? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

w:Language#Unique_status_of_human_language DTLHS (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"No matter how eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were poor, but honest." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Template for deleting accent marks?[edit]

Hello, I want to ask if there is a template that would act the same as {{l-self}} but without creating a link, meaning that its input is a word with accent marks and output is the same word but without accent marks (i.e. the form that is displayed on the page title)?

Thank you. -Robotukas11 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

{{#invoke:languages/templates|getByCode|(code)|makeEntryName|(text)}} should work. You can't use that directly in entries though, or else you have to subst it. —CodeCat 22:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
For instance, {{subst:#invoke:languages/templates|getByCode|grc|makeEntryName|Δῐονῡ́σῐᾰ}} → Διονύσια. If there's a pressing need for it, a shorter template name could be created. But I haven't encountered any situations where it's needed. — Eru·tuon 23:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! Can I use it directly in templates for tables for declension, for example? -Robotukas11 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Robotukas11: Why do you need to? {{l-self}} already strips diacritics. Or did you mean you want it to display without diacritics, even when |1= is given with them? Also, note that CodeCat's solution above will not put the display in bold face the way {{l-self}} will. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation when adding pages to watchlist[edit]

I just discovered that I (annoyingly) have to click an "OK" button to confirm that I'm adding a page to my watchlist, whereas before it would just notify me via a popup, which I could easily ignore. Even more annoyingly, it now takes me to another page to tell me I've added it to my watchlist, without linking back to the entry, meaning I have to look up the page I was on again if I still want to edit/reference it. That's up to three page loads more than necessary. Is there a way to disable this feature or a place to complain about it? First world problems, I know, but surely this wasn't necessary? It's not like a page can't easily be removed from one's wtchlist if it was added by mistake.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I experienced this on two pages, then added another page to my watchlist, without that problem. I went back to the page I had first added to my watchlist (alloy) and removed it from my watchlist to see what would happen. It asked for confirmation, just like before. However, when I readded it, things were back to normal. Odd... Should I mention this in the Grease Pit, or is there something else going on here, like a buggy update? I noticed that the confirmation button for adding pages to my watchlist was in the exact same style as the recently enlarged "Publish changes" button. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me like the "new" behavior is the underlying default that's overlaid by a javascript function as the page is processed. In my experience it only happens when you click the icon before the page-load is far enough along. If I get the dialog, I backspace/back-arrow and wait a bit longer before clicking the icon. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The simple version of what Chuck Entz said is that this happens when JavaScript isn't working properly. --WikiTiki89 15:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No Wiktionary without cookies or local storage[edit]

Until a few days ago, I could use this site perfectly in Firefox's private browsing mode and with dom.storage turned off. Since yesterday, however, the Translation tables in entries like sedge (the English word "sedge"), for instance, and Declension tables in, say, Russian entries, do not have the "[show]" links, making them effectively unavailable to me unless I turn on the cookie and local storage options. While I have known this site to use them before (and seen both features mentioned in the site's policies), this has not been an issue until maybe yesterday. Were there any sudden change in the sites' policies or their enforcement that I have missed? —This unsigned comment was added by 2804:7f2:881:5779::1 (talk) at 14:38, 9 August 2017.

Well I have been working on javascript for past several days. Either I have missed something or it is a random js error that time after time occurs to all of us. Can you post the screen showing your browsers console? Dixtosa (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the OP, but I had to create an account so I could upload the images. Here are the shots of the "sedge" entry and "voda" ("water" in Russian). I hope I this helps. —This unsigned comment was added by X8r0 (talkcontribs) at 17:43, 9 August 2017.
Fixed, but turning localstorage and cookies off is definitely not supported even by mediawiki's core scripts. P.S. pics helped thank you. Dixtosa (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Just checked and everything works fine again, thanks! As for the localstorage/cookies off thing, it's just my "default MO" for the net at large - i.e. when not in my email, wikis and somewhat safe sites in general, so it can be a bit of a hassle to toggle both features on while trying to translate stuff from "not so safe" sites on another tab. Anyway, glad to be of help and thanks again! X8r0 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

E non è ancora finita![edit]

E non è ancora finita! - We're not done yet! ??
"è finita!" is third-person singular (female) present participle of finire
Should "E non è ancora finita!" rather be "and she has not finished yet" or "E non è ancora finito!" would be "And it's not over yet! '", I am asking. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The subject of the phrase (which has been elided) is cosa. This is feminine so finita is used instead of finito. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


Is 50/50% "no consensus to delete" in a deletion discussion? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, separate question, if there are literally no comments on one deletion discussion for months on end, would it just fail RFD? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
1) Yes. Even 2/3 is, at best, borderline. 2) No. In rfd, the presumption is to keep unless there is consensus to delete, while in rfv, the presumption is that lack of response means no evidence that it should be kept, so it gets deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
But an uncontested rfd means delete. —CodeCat 15:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, since the tacit advantage goes to the status quo. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Magic links tracking categories[edit]

I have cleaned out most of these subcategories but some pages are protected. Will an admin please finish the job? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)