Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/August

< Wiktionary:Beer parlour
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← July 2018 · August 2018 · September 2018 → · (current)


Dialogue tagsEdit

I was considering making a category for verbs that are often used as dialogue tags (which is when written dialogue is attributed with something like "he said"). What do you think? Should it be appendix-only? There's no real rules on it, AFAIK (there's no obvious reason I can think of that spoke and talked can't be used as dialogue tags, but they can't). Should it be marked to the correct sense for multi-sense verbs? And should it be at the present-tense lemma form say even though it's almost always the past-tense form said? GaylordFancypants (talk)

Is this the same as what grammarians call a verbum dicendi (plural verba dicendi)?  --Lambiam 14:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, I'd never heard of that term before. GaylordFancypants (talk)
See also reported speech. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The verb (or “tag”) may equally take direct speech (a quotation) as a direct object (I’m fine”, he said.), or introduce reported speech through a subordinate clause (He said that he was fine.).
I've taken a stab at starting the template as I envision it. I don't know how to do conditional fields so it's just a non-working prototype to get feedback for now, at Template:Verba dicendi. What do y'all think? GaylordFancypants (talk)
Where would the output of this template be displayed? DCDuring (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Under a "usage notes" header. I'd say on both the lemma and past-tense pages (say and said), or if you'd rather just the lemma with a quick usage note on the past-tense form that points readers to the lemma page for the details. GaylordFancypants (talk)
It's somewhat large, and it's boilerplate; perhaps it could be in an Appendix: page? —Suzukaze-c 07:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a few well-chosen examples of how to actually use this and what would be displayed will help to clarify the intention. I do not understand the class RPO. Take the sentence “The time has come to talk of many things.” Is talk RPO there? Another question: why does “object=forbidden” list write? To me, “He wrote that everything was fine” is a perfectly acceptable sentence.  --Lambiam 09:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, the plural is fine for a category (as in Category:English verba dicendi), but for a template the singular is more appropriate, and probably also a minuscule for its initial letter, depending on the intended use.  --Lambiam 14:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Why not insert the desired content manually in sandbox copies of language sections, starting with one or two in English? Shouldn't we start with the displayed content and not the template? Also, how many expressions would merit application of the concept? DCDuring (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like there's more constructions for reported speech than I anticipated (especially taking into account obsolete, regional and rare constructions), so I'm considering the much simpler template at Template:verbum dicendi now (which just says the verb can be used as either a tag, reported speech or both). Then there would be an appendix page listed that describes all the rules in copious detail. GaylordFancypants (talk)
Yeah, I think this would apply to literally hundreds of verbs. A label with a link to the glossary would probably be more appropriate than a usage note in every entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
A lot of people use verbs for color rather than adjectives or adverbs, which has led to a wide variety of substitutes for the usual "he/she said". You also see a lot of Usenet posts that go out of their way to use extremely strange verbs of this type to introduce the text in the previous message that the poster is replying to. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Wiktionary:Entry layoutEdit

(Repeat of 16 June 2018). Please see Wiktionary talk:Entry layout#Indentation?.  --Lambiam 14:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:antonyms, Template:synonyms, Template:hyponyms, Template:hypernymsEdit

Currently, these templates throw out module errors when the word parameter is left empty ({{ant|fr|}}Lua error in Module:nyms at line 17: The parameter "2" is required.).

Couldn't we change that, and make them behave as the etymology templates (for example, {{bor}}: {{bor|en|la|}}Latin [Term?]), plus make them put the entry in a CAT:Requests for antonyms in Russian entries, CAT:Requests for synonyms in French entries, etc.?

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV? Per utramque cavernam 14:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. There's no reason to use these if you don't have any content. Just add the category manually. DTLHS (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. It would enforce finding synonyms and thus we would have pairings which are only fuzzy matches; and good matches are added anyway when someone sees them. You can use the Thesaurus namespace to request semantically related words – Thesaurus entries suggest by their mere existence to add semantically related words. Fay Freak (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: I think none of your points is valid. 1) I didn't say we should add that template everywhere; editor's judgment should be exercised. I'm not going to add an antonym request to giraffe. 2) It's not true that "good matches are added when someone sees them": an editor doesn't necessarily think about antonyms when he comes to an entry. To take an obvious example: вну́тренний (vnútrennij) has no antonym mentioned, while it's been visited by at least three people fluent in Russian. 3) How exactly do you suggest to proceed with that? Create Thesaurus:ru:внутренний to ask for antonyms? That doesn't make sense. Per utramque cavernam 17:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
So gently pushing the addition of semantical relations as a maintenance issue while editors actually wanted to do other things? Nice.
The semantical relations can be added with a slower pace too. Fay Freak (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Well yes (isn't it what we do with {{rfinfl}}, for example?), but nobody is forced to do anything here. But I get your point; maybe it's not such a good idea to create an umpteenth maintenance category. Per utramque cavernam 17:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Inflections are core information while semantical relations are supererogation. Also they are not placed at the same places the same ways with the same intentions, so they are not so commensurable for this. Fay Freak (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You could say the same about etymologies and images, and there are request templates for both. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
No, IMO. If no-one has bothered to list synonyms, maybe there aren't any. (In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, that presupposes there is a term in the source language, which could usually be added. And almost anything could, theoretically, be represented in an image—although IMO over-requesting and over-adding images to e.g. noncorporeal concepts or complex verbs would generally be undesirable.) If you think there are synonyms, then you add them, or ask in the Tea Room. - -sche (discuss) 13:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Otherwise, you have the issue that because it's hard to prove a negative, it's hard to know when, if ever, the request could be removed... - -sche (discuss) 13:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

New header "Alternative spellings" distinct from "Alternative forms"Edit

I don't like having a single header both for alternative spellings and alternative forms. Couldn't we split them? Per utramque cavernam 08:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see why you would want to distinguish them, given that we have different templates for their definition-lines, but it'd take up more space when both were present (and look redundant, IMO), and make even more salient the difficulty of distinguishing which strings are alt spellings and which are alt forms: e.g. should alt capitalizations be differences in spelling, or form? (Or should they have their own, third header?) And given that noobs and WF already misuse variants of the header (which DTLHS has helpfully tracked from time to time), any distinction we might pick would not be maintained, so we'd have two headers being used for the same things (e.g. in huevada "alternative spellings" is already used for strings that differ in pronunciation, perhaps enough to be considered not even just alt forms but distinct synonymous words, but at least now that's an error, findable by a simple search, and fixable). Whereas, all alt spellings are alt forms, so headering them as such seems tolerable to me. The existence of different templates seems like less of a problem, although the nominal distinction is certainly not cleanly maintained, because they almost never occur together in the same block of definitions. - -sche (discuss) 13:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-07/Alternative forms header? —Suzukaze-c 02:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been terribly consistent about this but I tend to favour alt forms for minor spelling differences not affecting the sound (haemo-, hemo-) and synonyms for anything else (magic, magical). I am cautious about introducing further headers because (as -sche suggests) we already take up too much space for simple entries and having a new header doesn't guarantee that users will use it properly anyway. Equinox 09:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

News from French WiktionaryEdit


It's a pleasure to invite you to read the July issue of Wiktionary Actualités translated in English!

July Actualités are filled with three articles: the word populism and a comparison of its definition in several wiktionaries; a presentation of a dictionary about Breton and French in contact; a discussion about the actors of the description of neologisms and the role of Wiktionary it this task. As usual, there is also new and encouraging stats, videos and nice pictures.

This issue was written by nine people and was translated for you by Dara. This translation can still be improved by readers (wiki-spirit). We hope you could enjoy this reading and we'll be happy to answer any question you may have about our publication or articles in it   Noé 09:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Adminship (reluctantly)Edit

Even though I don't desire adminship, there are times when it would be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RfV for love?Edit

Should we have a policy to follow Merriam-Webster on this issue? I can see strong arguments either way. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Profoundly stupid. (To be clear: MW's decision, not your post.)
Shall we similarly remove the, ineffable, get?
As far as I'm concerned, Merriam-Webster just admitted that they can't do their jobs, and rather than strive for excellence, they're simply throwing up their hands and sweeping their incompleteness under the rug. I find it difficult to respect such an approach to lexicography. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
That has got to be a joke. Equinox 17:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, isn't Clickhole a satire site related to The Onion? - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I suspect it isn't citable, but many people online sometimes refer to falling for a transparent joke by The Onion or one of its sister sites as "eating the Onion". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
See w:ClickHole. DCDuring (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I did, however, take this as inspiration to overhaul our entry, adding a few senses. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
While we're discussing the entry, aren't verb senses 3 and 5 really the same sense? To me it seems like they both mean "to enjoy, be greatly pleased by, derive delight from" (an emphatic word for like). —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking to alternative formsEdit

If anyone would like to help out in linking to English alt forms, alt spellings, obsolete forms, etc., to their main entries, there is now a list of unlinked forms that will take a bit of work to get through. There's also a Portuguese list if anyone would like to help with that. Ultimateria (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A related issue is linking to non-lemma forms and alternative forms/spellings instead of to main-entry lemmas. I occasionally find myself clicking through two, three, or (rarely) more entries before getting to a lemma. It's bad enough having to run through an entire lemma entry for a polysemous word to find the relevant definition. DCDuring (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that these need to be corrected as well. If anyone is willing to create a list of these chaining soft redirects, I would appreciate it. Ultimateria (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ultimateria User:DTLHS/cleanup/alt form chains DTLHS (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I have my work cut out for me now haha Ultimateria (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
What about the mester > mister > míster chain? It just so happens that there are two senses to the middle term, with the other two being alt forms of distinct etymologies. Is screening manually the only way to find them? Ultimateria (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

svenverelst-infoEdit 12:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I saw you rolled these links back, but they aren't spam links. They are Belgian media articles about long-time Wiktionarian Sven and his rare form of leucemia, posted by Sven himself. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Differentiating citations by category of "durability"Edit

do someone a frighten contains a typical RfV of a current internet meme.

It is characterized as cited, but only one of those is clearly in print. In order to cover such meme-idioms, which we probably should to keep relevant) we have to accept some relaxation of our "durably archived" standard. But we need to acknowledge that there are differences in the types of citations that have evidentiary import. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. Perhaps we could at least characterize citations as in print, usenet, not provably in print, provably not in print. Usenet is already marked if one of the templates is used. The other two should also be marked as it is an unreasonable burden on a user to research the citation's archival status. There may be other appropriate status markings as well. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary Cognate DashboardEdit

Screenshot of the Hub view

Hello all,

A few months ago, we asked you for feedback about Cognate, the system allowing interwikilinks between Wiktionaries (on main namespace). Several community members gave some suggestions, one of them was to provide statistics about these interwikilinks.

The Wikidata team is pleased to present you the Wiktionary Cognate Dashboard, a website presenting a lot of interesting information about how Wiktionaries are connected to each others. You can find there, for example:

  • the most interlinked Wiktionary entries not having a page on your Wiktionary
  • the number of interlinks between each possible pair of Wiktionaries
  • visualizations of the relationships between different Wiktionaries

To learn more about the tool, you can have a look at the documentation (please help us translating it in your language!). The interface of the tool itself can also be translated in other languages by using this page.

If you find a bug, please let a comment on this Phabricator task or ping me onwiki. Thanks a lot, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Hi. I've recently asked DTLHS for a list of French words found on el.wikt but not here: User:DTLHS/Greek French phrases. Would it be possible to do this myself with this tool? I'd be interested in:
  • which Belarusian entries we're missing that are on many other wiktionaries (an example: a few days ago I've created падбародак, quite a basic word which exists on seven other wiktionaries already);
  • which Belarusian entries we're missing that are on ru.wikt;
  • which French entries we're missing that are on nl.wikt;
  • a couple other lists.
Per utramque cavernam 12:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Per utramque cavernam and thanks for your suggestion. We've been thinking about this, unfortunately we're currently blocked because Wiktionaries use different ways to format their language titles inside the pages, and there is currently now way to browse all pages and check if there is a section related to a certain language on an entry. See details here. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Cyrillic numbersEdit

Our entries for English numerals (e.g. ninety-nine) list Arabic and Roman numerals as synonyms. Do you think we should include the Cyrillic (and any other) ones as well (I am not confident to do it myself). SemperBlotto (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it's an English entry, and as far as I know Cyrillic numerals are not used in any English context, no. DTLHS (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: What exactly are "Cyrillic numerals"? If I type "99" using e.g. a Russian keyboard, it's the same "99" you would get using an English or any Roman based keyboard. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry - that was down to ignorance. I had better not ask about Hebrew numerals. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth: Cyrillic numerals. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: That's OK and it may be worth considering other numerals where appropriate. @-sche: Yes, but they are archaic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Implementing "Restructure comparative and superlative categories"Edit

In order to implement Wiktionary:Votes/2018-07/Restructure comparative and superlative categories, some wide-sweeping changes will have to be made. These notes below are copied from the vote talk page, where I had talked about ways to implement the change:

  1. Modify the categories under poscatboiler data or wherever it is to match the new spec, keeping adjective comparative forms etc. there until we have gotten rid of those categories
    1. Moving "comparative adjectives" etc. under adjective forms
    2. Adding a new category entry for "comparative adjective forms" etc.
  2. Move the entries:
    1. Category:English adjective comparative forms -> Category:English comparative adjectives (and respectively for all categories under Category:Adjective comparative forms by language).
    2. Category:English adjective superlative forms -> Category:English superlative adjectives (and respectively for all categories under Category:Adjective superlative forms by language).
    3. Category:English adverb comparative forms -> Category:English comparative adverbs (and respectively for all categories under Category:Adverb comparative forms by language).
    4. Category:English adverb superlative forms -> Category:English superlative adverbs (and respectively for all categories under Category:Adverb superlative forms by language).
    • (If the target categories already exist for some langauges, just merge the two)
    • The moving process will probably entail the following:
      1. Modifying Template:comparative of and Template:superlative of
      2. Editing the head template transclusions in all articles
  3. Eliminating the old categories from poscatboiler data

Right now the step would be to modify Template:comparative of and Template:superlative of; I was thinking of getting rid of the is_lemma parameter and assuming it is always true, therefore categorizing all comparatives under LANGNAME comparative adjectives for instance. Are there any suggestions, or would this be a good solution? SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(This change would also apply to language-specific comparative/superlative templates, like the English ones) SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrapping entire entries in {{l|en}}Edit

Apparently this is not transparently a dumb idea and we need to explicitly forbid it. Would anyone else like to weigh in? DTLHS (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Why forbid it? It may be an easier way to create entries for some users. Does it hurt something? - Alumnum (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Technical issues aside (see Chuck’s comment on your TP), this destroys the syntactic usefulness of {{l}}. When you tag a bunch of definitions, usexes, labels, quotations, {{syn}}-type templates and HWL with {{l|en}}, it indicates that the whole content is written in English, which is not the case for half of these things. This could throw off, for example, a parser or a screen reader that is not designed to take into account spans with a lang attribute that are inside another span with a lang attribute. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
To be nitpicky, in the resulting HTML code, it is only the first paragraph after the start of the {{l}} template that is tagged with lang="en": the headword line in this case. This is probably because {{l}} uses an inline element (<span>...</span>), which cannot surround block elements like paragraph tags (<p>...</p>), so it is only added to the contents of the first <p>...</p> tag. But the HTML is still bad: the headword doesn't need to be tagged as English, then as Portuguese. — Eru·tuon 17:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Bottom line: it saves you a few keystrokes, but makes it harder for everyone else. If it were something that went away after the initial edit, it wouldn't be that much of a problem, but it remains behind to confuse other editors and to make the results of modifying basic entry infrastructure much more unpredictable.
I suspect this violates the rules in WT:EL, though I haven't read through it to verify. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Other templates inside it evidently ignore it. Definitions should link to English, and since the def template was deleted, the linking template is now the only one that does it. It does not put anything into wrong categories or anything. I don't see how those scenarios you described apply here. I doubt that any of you are truly concerned about anything else other than aesthetical preferences. - Alumnum (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably in violation of "Headword line". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a very bad idea, and I don't even know where to put the warning not to do it. WT:NORM? Luckily, I have never seen anyone besides Alumnum attempt it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it violates several web standards and is therefore forbidden already. Plus I do not discern the use Alumnum thinks it has, or what would be “easier”. He has added the template in a way which has not changed anything except making the markup invalid. Fay Freak (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It messes up the instances of {{l|mul}} and {{taxlink}}. See User:DCDuring/Sandbox. Translingual terms that are taxonomic names are used in definitions of English terms. DCDuring (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey of lexicographers' needsEdit


I just discovered Elexis survey of lexicographers' needs and I invite you to spend some time to fill it. It aims lexicographers but I consider we are, despite Wiktionary not being our daily job. If you fill to the whole survey, you can get the previous answers and it is quite interesting to read. Deadline is August 27. Let me know if someone spend some time on it   Noé 15:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)