Wiktionary:Information desk/2022/August

I know that context labels are used to denote definitions that only apply to certain contexts, but can they also be used to denote the reverse: that the definition itself is the only one that applies in certain contexts? PaperSplash (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you mean. Could you give an example? Theknightwho (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

By putting a label next to a definition you are implying that that definition only relates to certain contexts. It does not relate to other definition lines. Does that answer you question? Vininn126 (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want to indicate that not only can, say, foobar antenna mean "a metal antenna with a helical foobar shape" or (in biology) "an insect's movable foobar-shaped feeler", but furthermore, in biology it always means the insect part and never the metal antenna? AFAIK this is considered to be adequately handled by context-labelling the {{lb|en|biology}} sense. (It's normally untrue that biologists would never refer to a foobar radio antenna or whatever, anyway.) In extreme cases, usage notes can clarify things. - -sche (discuss) 15:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Thank you. PaperSplash (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m accessing wiktionary with safari and every entry loads with all of the language sub menus open. So, for a word like “e” I have to close language after language sub header to get to the one I want. Wikipedia and most other wiki sites always load with page subsections closed, so I don’t know why this is happening. — This unsigned comment was added by Jrabinowicz (talk • contribs) at 03:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC).

I am relatively new to adding new Wiktionary entries and am trying to expand coverage of languages I come across resources for. I want to add some words for Yessan-Mayo, but I can not find any dictionary for it (the one lemma only cites a journal entry). However, I have found this reference grammar for the language, which lists a number of words (for example, page 31 lists the word "yabel" meaning "sun", which is not listed in Wiktionary). Can I use this as a citation for new entries for the words listed in it, or do I need to find a proper dictionary to use as a source? Tymewalk (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If a reference grammar is reliable (this one seems to be) and you're adding words in their 'lemma' form rather than an inflected form, it's a fine source. (But note that if someone adds large numbers of words without knowledge of the language, just copying from the other work rather than just using it as a reference to support the correctness of their definitions for words they know, it may run into copyright issues, regardless of whether the word is a dictionary, grammar, etc.) - -sche (discuss) 15:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Also: see WT:CFI, especially WT:ATTEST. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary based on usage, so ideally we would want three examples of the terms in use. For limited-documented languages such as this, however (see WT:LDL), a single mention in any reliable source (including a good reference grammar) is fine. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz What is the status of example sentences? Are they usages or mentions? Does it depend on a probable guess as to whether they are real examples or composed for the grammar? --RichardW57 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57: made-up example sentences fail the use-mention test: they're not "signifying meaning". If, on the other hand, the reference uses quotes of actual use for examples- whether attested anywhere else or not- that's usually okay. Also, if a term is used in a definition or other explanatory text, that's generally a use (depending on the context)- even though it's in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User:DCDuring changed the formatting of quotations I added at chairmaness according to his preferences. I reverted, as I did not agree with the changes. After both of us have reverted 4 times, I think this should be discussed. J3133 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

User J3133 asserted that the pages were "his". DCDuring (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I stated “This is not your page”, not that the page is mine. J3133 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

But it is as much my page - or any contributor's - as it is yours. I object to lots of aspects of the page that do violate our practice: eg, too many citations (38, originally; 34, now that the non-independent ones are on the Citations page) that don't illustrate anything special about usage, some not even independent of each other, absence of authors for many cites, etc. I visited the page only because you had apparently not checked to see whether the wikilinks to WP were correct (4 were not.). Making corrections to one another's work is an essential part of attempting to raise our entry quality to approach that of our professional competitors. The formatting changes I made to the citations did not effect how normal users would see the quotations (except for the four that were not independent), but did make them a bit more compact and readable in the editing window. DCDuring (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am an editor in The Other Place (WP :-). There is a problem in WP, that Editors create topics on very low talk pages that are never answered. I saw the atom feed on your recent changes and wondered

• if you have a process to ensure chat topics, and
• Could explain what editors do with the atom feed process. Wakelamp (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We have CAT:en:Brewing for alcohol production by fermentation... I'd like to add a more general category above that, for words like freeze distillation, still, and probably angel's dram, which are currently uncategorized or haphazardly in Category:en:Alcoholic beverages. Is there a better name for this than just CAT:en:Alcohol production? And what do we want to do with terms like shot glass, put them in Category:en:Drinking like kegger, or should there be a CAT:en:Alcohol (which could also house the non-brewing alcohol-production terms)? - -sche (discuss) 06:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:en:Distilled beverages?  --Lambiam 09:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I presume British law applies to editors working from Britain, even though Wikimedia may not be subject to it. Does the extant copyright of the King James' Version apply to its translations? --RichardW57 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If the KJV ever had copyright, surely it has expired in the four centuries since it was published (unless you believe God is the author; then you may have to wait for 80 years after His demise). The KJV is itself a translation; are there translations of, specifically, this English text?  --Lambiam 09:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lambian: The right to publish the KJV is controlled by letters patent, not general copyright law. It is special even within the domain of crown copyright. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any template to request a source of a quotation? There are four quotations on the page มาร alone for which I would like to see sources - two translations of the KJV (I'm not sure that it would be legal for me to add the information from the UK), a translation to Thai of a quotation from the Tipitaka, and the Thai script form of that quotation. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know off the top of my head ({{rfv-quote}} looks promising), but anything in any language other than English that says "KJV" is obviously wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It certainly sounds bizarre, but most (all?) of what goes by the name of a Thai KJV is 'based' on translation of the King James Version. The New Testament parts also differ from other translations in being based firmly on the ; see w:King James Only movement, and, as one might suspect, there are those who see the King James Version as divinely inspired. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, {{rfv-quote}} seems to ask the wrong question. I have no trouble finding the 'KJV' quote on-line, but nailing down a proper off-line citation is not as simple I had hoped, and other translations are hard to find on-line. (The description of the translation as a 'work in progress' is ominous.) A more conventional translation should do the job; I'm confident the same word for 'devil' will be found, as the same word (more or less) is used in both places in the recent Northern Thai New Testament. (The previous version was notorious for lapsing into Siamese.) --RichardW57 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I might be able to turn the Thai translation of the Pali into a proper durable quote - it appears separately from the Pali on https://www.thairath.co.th/novel/tayadasun/ep16/page1. The Pali may be trickier to nail down and I think the template you suggested is borderline appropriate. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There should be some sort of policy against using {{ux}} for quotes. Vininn126 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Why? The usex “He was born with money.” quotes Solitude & Company. Is it worth the effort to use {{quote-book}}?  --Lambiam 09:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• The template you want is Template:rfdate or Template:rfdatek Dunderdool (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to find entries which contain translations to be checked in a particular language so that I can fix them. I already found out that you can find translations to be checked with this search although you can't filter by language. I have also seen this category, but it's deleted.

Right now my idea would be to search in a Wiktionary dump for {{t+check| followed by the language code, but that's not very convinient. Is there any simple way to do this? If not, this would be a useful feature. Tc14Hd (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Does this work? Category:Requests for review of German translations? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I wonder why Google didn't show that page to me... Tc14Hd (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find a list of symbols used in Wiktionary. For example, the dagger next to the definitions in this entry – what does it mean? If one does not exist, it might be helpful to create it. Nickc8 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That particular symbol is peculiar to Chinese entries, and is equivalent to something like (obsolete) or (archaic) in other languages. It's possible to discover the meaning (at least on desktop) by hovering over the dagger, which reveals the title text "Obsolete sense in Modern Standard Chinese—may be preserved in fossilised compounds and expressions or other varieties of Chinese". This is far from ideal from a discoverability standpoint.

As for the list of symbols, I'm not sure anything like that exists, but it would be a good idea. WT:EL explains a lot about the typical entry layout, but is oriented for editors moreso than readers. For Chinese specifically, WT:AZH may be helpful. Neither of those guides focus on symbols or mention the dagger in particular, though. 142.166.21.76 05:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The general aim is to bring Chinese entries more in line with the rest of the site, at least when it comes to unnecessary differences like that. Theknightwho (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary is supposed to explain all the potentially confusing terms used in Wiktionary; I'd say an explanation of the dagger should be added there. To help people who don't know to look there, we could make the dagger link to there, like many {{label}}s do, unless having both a link and the existing hover/alt text wouldn't work. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be reasonable to add a "symbols" section to the glossary, maybe at the start. I'm not sure what other symbols really need explaining though. Maybe * for reconstructions. 142.166.21.76 00:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I created this word today and entered a definition for it on Wiktionary, however I'd not created an account when I entered the information. Is there a way to show that I created this word/definition now that I've created an account?

regards, John Douglass Chippertpa Chippertpa (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn't a place for new coinages of words. Please see Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You could have done a trivial edit, such as adding a space where it will have no effect, and add an edit summary to claim and admit responsibility for the word. That is a technique for de-pirating the taking of text from other Wikimedia pages. (The editors of a page retain copyright of their contributions, but also irrevocably license its use under the CC BY-SA license.) In this particular case, the word has already been removed, as explained above. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I want to create a landing page for Sociology. This does not intend to list all the terms given within this topic, but to act as a landing page for readers interested in Sociology and provide an overview of key categories/ areas to go within this project to find what they might be looking for.

The main reason for this is that when trying to link the Wikidata entry for "Sociology" to resources on Wiktionary, such as categories, etc. they are already embedded with their own Wikidata ID and cannot be linked. Creating a new landing page that overviews useful information would allow Wiktionary's resources on Sociology to be linked with the wider project.

I could not find something like this that wasn't an entry or a category, but if something like this does exist please do let me know. If not, it would be great to add as an additional wayfinding resource. Jamzze (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't have anything quite like that. It sounds like you're discussing the Portal namespace that is present on projects like Wikipedia and Wikisource. The Appendix namespace is pretty flexible in what is allowed, but that will probably not suit your purpose in orienting readers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I thought there might not be something similar to this for Wiktionary. I will ask around further for what a good solution to this might be. Jamzze (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We do have a Category:Sociology as well as a Category:en:Sociology.  --Lambiam 09:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I did look into using these, but they already have their own Wikidata entries and can't be reused - have asked elsewhere. Thanks for suggesting though! Jamzze (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The OED is doing an online talk/lecture (interactive discussion?) about African American English, in about a month from now, with some scholarly speakers: . Might be interesting? @AG202 Hope it's okay to bother you, simply because you're the one user I remember who is (I think) in the US with African roots. Equinox ◑ 14:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I also found this notice helpful and am looking to attend myself. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I was wondering if it was possible to add a specific entry for people of significance.

Particularly, I want to add an entry on Karl Marx to help briefly define who they are and importance as a bibliographical defining resource + linking to the wikipedia article for further information.

There are entries on Marx (the wider surname) and Marxism (Karl Marx's ideology), but not on the person themselves. For projects like sociology, it is rather important to define this for people new to the subject to understand the difference between a surname/ ideology/ person. Jamzze (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is rare to add entries for a person's name, but you can find terms related to a person, such as (e.g.) Category:en:Barack Obama once a sufficient number of terms related to that person are coined. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jamzze, I think you might be confused about what Wiktionary is all about.

Wiktionary is a dictionary -- our goal is to describe terms that describe things.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- its goal is to describe things that are labeled by terms.

Any article about an individual name (such as the derivation, first use, spelling variants, meaning, etc.) belongs here at Wiktionary.

Any article about an individual person (such as who they were, when they lived, what they did, social impact, etc.) belongs on Wikipedia.

You might benefit from reading through Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think I disagree with this. Wikipedia regularly has articles that describe terms that describe things.

As well, I think having entries on people of significance should not be out of the realm of what this project is trying to achieve. Most subject dictionaries have entries on people of significance to define how they relate with the subject/ its terms.

As well, including specific people that are important to an area can help address important questions.

For example:

How is "Karl Marx" pronounced?

How can I use "Karl Marx" in a sentence?

What is the spelling of "Karl Marx" in English vs Russian?

What definitions of "Karl Marx" are there? E.g.:

1. (communism) was a leading figure in socialism.
2. (social science} was a key contributor to political, sociological, and economic theory.
3. etc.

As shown above, I am not asking to include encyclopedic information, but dictionary-related information. If this is something that would need to be discussed at changing as a policy-level issue within Wiktionary, I can also post this request elsewhere for further debate and discussion. Jamzze (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jamzze: We won’t do that, since we abhor “importance” criteria for subject matters. This is not a “subject dictionary” either, hence the “definitions” you seek to include is not dictionary-related information; the other examples belong into a grammar, as a third work category beside encyclopediae and dictionaries. Fay Freak (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have a hard time convincing editors of that. Also if you look at any other mono-lingual dictionary they also do that. So yeah, sorry, but no. Eirikr is right. Vininn126 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jamzze, I think you might still be a bit confused about what we do here.  :) I'd like to respond to your various points in detail, in an honest attempt at clarifying.

• "Wikipedia regularly has articles that describe terms that describe things."

Yes, we describe terms. We don't describe the things beyond what is necessary to clearly define the terms. Where appropriate, we even link through to the corresponding Wikipedia articles so readers have an easy way of reading more about the things described by the terms.

• "I think having entries on people of significance should not be out of the realm of what this project is trying to achieve."

See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion, specifically the #Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia section, which explicitly states (emphasis mine):

Wiktionary articles are about words, not about people or places. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia.

• "Most subject dictionaries have entries on people of significance..."

As Fay Freak has already noted, Wiktionary is not a "subject dictionary".

• ...help address important questions ... how is "Karl Marx" pronounced?... What is the spelling of "Karl Marx" in English vs Russian?"

We have entries for Karl and for Marx. The name "Karl Marx" is trivially understandable to English readers as a combination of these two components. Anyone interested in how to pronounce "Karl Marx" can figure out how to look up the pronunciation of "Karl" by going to the Karl#English entry, and of "Marx" by going to the Marx#English entry.

Similarly, a user can look up Karl#English, see the #Translations section there, follow the link to Carl#English, view the #Translations section there, expand the transliterations and equivalents of "Carl" table, and find the Russian translation Карл (Karl). Likewise for "Marx".

• "How can I use "Karl Marx" in a sentence?"

This touches upon the question of basic competence in the English language. Anyone who has recognized that "Karl Marx" is a name should have some idea how to use it. Same as for "John Johnson" or "Frederick Wilson" or "Aloysius von Strumpfschneider der Vierte".

• "What definitions of "Karl Marx" are there?"

There is no definition for "Karl Marx" that is not encyclopedic. We can say that this is the full given-name + surname combination for anyone named "Karl Marx", and we can talk about the specific "Karl Marx" who wrote Das Kapital. However, the former is not useful (going back to basic English-language competence and understanding what a name is and how it works), and the latter is encyclopedic (about the person, not the term). The term itself is patently the combination of Karl#English + Marx#English, and thus the combination is likely to be treated as a SOP or "sum of its parts", until and unless that combination has some other idiomatic meaning that arises. SOP entries are subject to deletion as they are not lexical units (integral terms with meanings that are not obvious from the combination of meanings of the individual component terms).

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)