Wiktionary:Information desk/2015/October

Template:!! here appears to be the same as v:Template:!!, w:Template:!!, and commons:Template:!!. With respect to creating templates here, if I copy a template from say Wikipedia and bring it here for use. Do I need to cite where I copied it from? Or, is there a general okay to copy templates and if necessary modify here for use? --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

When you copy a template from Wikipedia (or Wikisource, Wikibooks, etc.), please at least link the original template in the edit summary. If nothing else, if anything goes wrong with the template, we'll use that information when discussing whether the template could be fixed or deleted.

Also, Special:Import is supposed to import pages with the full history for crediting purposes, but it seemed to be broken last time I checked. I don't know if it's working now, maybe someone else does. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it usually taught in schools that man can refer to a human being of either sex? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Don't know. But we go on actual usage, not what is taught. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think throughout my schooling my teachers may have mentioned a few times that "man" can refer to humans in general. I was certainly never taught that "man" must refer to a male. --WikiTiki89 19:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Newer books don't seem to do that; it leaps out at me as quite dated when I see it. Schools here would probably avoid it like the plague now. Equinox ◑ 01:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A man can only imagine the hissyfit progressives would throw if a school dared to tell their students that it can. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In my experience "man" being used to refer to humans in general, like "mankind" in place of "humankind", are past English usage and no longer current usage, just as we no longer describe an exclamation as an "ejaculation" in current usage even though that was once common. When I was in school in the late 70s and early 80s, I sometimes encountered books from earlier decades (or centuries) which used "man" and "mankind" in the manner formerly common, but I was not taught that was acceptable usage for my own writing. More accurate language seems like the better choice to me, so I'm in favor of the current usage of "people" or "humans", and "humankind" or "humanity". —GrammarFascist (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious ?? Or are you just wishfully dreaming ? Of course mankind is still current--it may not seem as overly hyper-sensitive as "humankind" among a few fringe groups, but is still the general term. Talk about being too cutting edge. Ow. It amazes me the things I read here sometimes... :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't lose faith in mankind just because of one Grammar Fascist. --WikiTiki89 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm badly misreading it, the question was about what is taught in schools, not what should be taught in schools. —GrammarFascist (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

But your answer didn't mention schools. --WikiTiki89 18:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In what way does the sentence beginning "When I was in school in the late 70s and early 80s..." not count as mentioning schools? —GrammarFascist (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In English we use the term "X education" to describe some key types of teaching, e.g. early childhood education. What do we call these two types of teaching: 1) The teaching of morals and ethics in the classroom. 2) Teaching of children by their parents in the home about what is considered appropriate behaviour, ways of thinking, etc. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

For #1, if you mean what I think you mean, then for me (UK, 1990s) it was PSE (personal social education). Singapore has CCE (character and citizenship education). Some countries just call it citizenship. Equinox ◑ 02:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If what you say is true, we are missing a sense at citizenship. I can't think of what the Australian equivalent might be, if there is one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, I just found w:character education, this looks very close. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Also civics. Equinox ◑ 02:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Download as PDF" does not include translations. Shouldn't this be changed? --Spiros71 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, but I have no idea who to report it to. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to fulfil some of the Welsh translation requests (using the assisted 'add translation' box - as you can probably tell, I know precious little about correctly formatting things manually). I'd like to add a translation for 'lung' (noun, a biological organ that extracts oxygen from the air). In Welsh, the normal form of this is 'ysgyfaint', which is plural, denoting the lungs as a pair. In both of the dictionaries I've checked (Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru and Geiriadur yr Academi), 'ysgyfaint' is given as the lemma. The singular 'ysgyfant' is only noted as 'occ.' (Geiriadur yr Academi) and 'diw.' (recent/modern, GPC). When I'm adding the translation of 'lung', therefore, should I be adding the singular 'ysgyfant' or the more widely used plural, and lemma, 'ysgyfaint'? I'm afraid I don't how to add a UTC timestamp to this message. Glassapple (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd use ysgyfaint as the lemma form; the GPC entry makes it pretty clear that ysgyfant is a back-formation, and not even a particularly common one. In fact ysgyfaint even has a plural of its own, ysgyfeiniau/ysgyfeinau, which presumably means "pairs of lungs", suggesting that before the back-formation was created, ysgyfaint wasn't even felt as a plural. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Glassapple (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any app I can download for my Android cell phone to create .ogg audio files that could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for Portuguese pronunciations? (I don't have a microphone for my PC, I could borrow one easily but that'd not be my first option)

The apps I have on my cell phone create mp3 files, so alternatively, a software for my PC that can convert mp3->ogg easily in a bulk would be acceptable too.

I checked this page but it didn't seem helpful for Android apps:

• Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Audio

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to request the following to be added to Module:languages/datax:

m = {
	canonicalName = "Lidepla",
	otherNames = "Lingwa de Planeta",
	type = "appendix-constructed",
	scripts = {"Latn"},
	family = "art",
}

It is for the conlang w:Lingwa de planeta, better known as Lidepla.

Aryamanarora (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

To judge from the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/October#Lingwa de Planeta, this suggestion appears have no consensus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I created "that guy" yesterday. It was only my second new entry here, and I suspect I've done at least something wrong in formatting and/or filling it in. I would appreciate it if a more experienced Wiktionarian (is that the term?) would look at it and give me some feedback and/or make corrections. Thanks in advance, GrammarFascist (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job ! I made one addition though, I added the plural form Leasnam (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Leasnam, and for your edit. (I had actually put the plural in originally, but DixtosaBOT removed it.) Thanks also to Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Dixtosa, Wikitiki89, Ēloquiō, and Sonofcawdrey for their edits to the entry. Apologies if the notifications annoyed any of you; I'm used to social norms at English Wikipedia and still learning my way here. —GrammarFascist (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)