Wiktionary:Information desk/2022/November

When searching for a word, why does the Wiki keyboard default to capitalizing the word - the overwelming majority of dictionary words are non-capitalized? Almost every word search therefore begins with 2 extra strokes - Cap to Cap lock, and Cap lock to non-Cap! — This unsigned comment was added by QuienLoSabe333 (talk • contribs) at 07:13, 2 November 2022.

For possible context: the above comment was submitted by a mobile user. 98.170.164.88 07:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@QuienLoSabe333: I do not experience this using Firefox as my web browser in a Linux or Windows machine. Can you tell us more about which browser and kind of computer you are using to access Wiktionary? Gracias. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think Wiktionary has the capability to set the user's keyboard's behavior. It's simply that the mobile keyboard assumes naively that every time you load the keyboard, it's a new sentence, and therefore should begin with a capital letter. So far as I know, the same thing will happen on any other website and any other social media platform apart from those few that have a built-in keyboard .... and I suspect that the coding required to change this is well beyond the scope of Wiktionary since I expect it would require a standalone app, most likely different for different platforms, and therefore wouldn't work for most mobile users anyway. —Soap— 13:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In most cases on Apple and Android a simple HTML attribute will do the trick, autocapitalize="none". For whatever reason, the search bar that appears after clicking the icon on mobile does not have this attribute set, though the permanent search bar on larger screen widths does. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, this seems to be the case. Note that this is phab:T251664 and see Jdlrobson's most recent comment. 98.170.164.88 16:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be working now. Thank you to all involved. —Soap— 18:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to see this implemented. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I just added a Verb header to writing as separate words translation hub, but I am having troubles with the conjunction it require

I have tried to add a hyphen as conjugation is redundant in this case, and I have checked Template:en-verb for answers, but I haven't found a correct way.

I have tried to solve it via a copy/paste from write, but I'm uncertain if is of acceptable standard.

Can someone check to make sure its correct? --Christoffre (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

✔️SOLVED: It has been fixed moved to write as separate words --Christoffre (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete bheemta?

The word is not only being misrepresented on this website, but another problem is that it is a grossly unpopular term with only 1 unreliable source making a passing mention of it on entire internet. Rest of the sources are troll-types, i.e. online forums, tweets, that have no relevance here.

I am sure this website has better standard than Urban Dictionary but I would like to know if my rationale is correct. Editorkamran (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: You can use the WT:RFV process to request verification. However, we won't delete a word just because it's rude, or used by "trolls". Rude words are still words. Equinox ◑ 03:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox: I never said that it should be deleted for being 'rude', otherwise "idiot" would need to go first.

I am only asking if least known terms, or the terms that are confined to internet trolling and haven't attracted coverage are eligible for deletion. Editorkamran (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Please see WT:CFI for our rules on inclusion of words. These rules have been carefully developed over many years. Equinox ◑ 09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The entry for the term of: "perpetual motion" says, "with no obvious input of energy" while the entry for the term of: "over-unity" says, "an over-unity device should produce more energy than it receives as input" and "supposedly capable of perpetual motion" which directs the reader to the entry for "perpetual motion".

I construe this to mean that "perpetual motion" is more vague and broadly generic in contrast to "over-unity" which is a subset of "perpetual motion". Am I correct?

But if these two terms are intended to be capable of replacing each other, then they are so distinctly different as to spawn confusion and a deference towards ambiguity within the mind of the reader whenever dwelling on these terms.

1. Either "perpetual motion" should be redefined to be:
   1. The motion of some hypothetical device that continues forever with an input of energy which is less than its output in violation of the laws of thermodynamics by contributing to the generation of its own power. This would require a redefinition of some of the terms and concepts of the passive sign convention which presume that passive electrical components, such as: inductive loads, are incapable of becoming "active" without assistance from a prime mover. Yet, the concept of over-unity (which drives perpetual motion) requires that these passive electrical components might somehow become active and capable of generating some power (rather than consuming it) sufficient enough to drive these devices forever (barring their eventual breakdown from wear and tear).

As complicated as that sounds, I see no other way of correcting our collective error, especially since no law of physics need be invoked. It's a conventional hazard which spawns our confusion, not any presumed violation of physics.

Prime movers are normally considered to be sources of power. But they can also be catalysts which merely stimulate the conversion of potential into some variety, or another, of their actualization without requiring any additional energy other than a mild stimulus of a precise type.

Or, in the alternative ...

1. The entry for "over-unity" should not direct to the entry for "perpetual motion", or else ...
2. Both corrections are required ...

... to bring these two entries into harmony. Yes? -- Vinyasi (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. The entry at over-unity says it would be capable of perpetual motion, not that it is synonymous with perpetual motion: clearly, a device that generates even more energy than put in can continue to move with no energy input. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Vinyasi (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Language data for Tamil language (ta) needs correction, I've already tried reaching out using it's talkpage, since no one responded, I am asking here once again: the ancestor of Tamil language is currently set as Old Tamil (oty), but it needs to be changed to Middle Tamil, and then Old Tamil.

Also, Middle Tamil's language code is set as 'ta-mid', which is incorrect according to the naming convictions of language codes in Wiktionary, it should be changed to 'dra-mta' like there is one for Middle Kannada (dra-mkn)

Further, some of the languages in the Tamil language family like Irula (iru), Eravallan (era), Yerukala (yeu), Kanikkaran (kev), Muthuvan (muv), Kaikadi (kep) has to be set as descendants of Tamil language instead of Proto-Dravidian. (I've not included Tamil-Kannada or Tamil-Malayalam languages in this list)

Thanks, Emmanuel Asbon (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The difference between Middle Tamil and Middle Kannada is that we recognize Middle Kannada as a separate language, hence the code dra-mkn, indicating a Dravidian language, but Middle Tamil is just an etymology-only variant of Tamil, so its code is ta-mid, indicating a variety of Tamil. I don't know enough about Dravidian languages to know whether this arrangement makes sense or if we ought to recognize Middle Tamil as a separate language, I'm just saying these are the current facts on the ground. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So, just some info, Middle Tamil is not a variant or a dialect, it was in fact a full fledged spoken language during ~ 700 - 1400 CE, which inturn developed into the Modern Tamil language and possibly the Old Malayalam language. In fact, Old Tamil and Middle Tamil show significant difference in their grammar structure and phonology— (some notable ones, are the present tense markers, epicene suffixs (formal) and neuter gender suffixs (informal), numerous Sanskrit vocabulary entered into the Tamil language during this transition period— and had it's own written scripts in different regions (Pallava, Vattelutu and others) There are numerous literary works and temple inscription in Middle Tamil to attest to these facts than there are for Middle Kannada (no offense to Kannada/Kannadigas), there are many scholarly works by Kamil Zvelebil, Iravatham Mahadevan and other linguists available online, some are cited in the Middle Tamil wikipedia page references section if you are interested. Again, thanks for taking your time to reply. Emmanuel Asbon (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I recently watched w:The Banshees of Inisherin, and, thinking of the movie w:The Secret of Roan Inish, I thought to look up if "Inish" is a word. But when I search wiktionary, nothing comes up for "Inish". Some more poking around and I realized it is an alternate spelling/anglicization of inis. So, I'm thinking it'd be good if the article for "inis" showed up when someone searched for "inish". Being inexperienced in Wiktionary editing (but somewhat experienced in Wikipedia editing), I have no idea what could/should be done to make this happen, in either a technical sense or a policy sense. I'm thinking maybe all that is needed is to add "inish" as an alternate spelling for "inis".

I think there's three things I don't know here:

1. What edit needs to be done to make searching for "inish" yield the "inis" article
2. How to do that edit
3. Would that edit be reverted?

If anyone reading this thinks it's easier/quicker to just do this for me rather than to teach me, I will mention that I don't anticipate that my level of Wiktionary-editing activity is likely to rise much above the once-a-year or so level, so the benefits of investing the time for me to learn this are questionable.

But I am curious.

Bsammon (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bsammon: The only reason to have an alternative spelling is if the spelling is used in Irish. There might be some way to include it as English in a Descendants section, but I don't think it has any meaning by itself in English- the place names that use it are all just English renderings of the original Irish.

It reminds me of something here in the southwestern US: there are a number of place names from Uto-Aztecan languages that end in "-gna": Cahuenga, Cucamonga, and Topanga, to name a few. It's a locative suffix meaning "place, place of", but it's not used as a suffix in English- no English speakers are even aware it exists unless they've seen it in an explanation of the origin of words where it occurs, and no one would ever add it when coining a new English word. Also pinging @Mahagaja, since this involves an Irish entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Chuck: inish is neither an English word nor an Irish word. We could have entries for Inisherin and Roan Inish (if they are real places in Ireland, not just fictional places), and these entries would then mention Irish inis in their etymology sections, but that's the best we can do. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is an English word. The capitalized form Inish is easily cited; there are plenty of book results for "the Inish": , which may either be a direct loanword, or an ellipsis of "Inish ". And I also found a few that were lowercase or plural, so it may be a common noun in English too, see Citations:inish (here's another one like that). 98.170.164.88 17:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In the beginning of November, I asked WikiProject Languages for their input on my proposed list article called List of Japanese onomatopoeias. They agreed that the list better belonged to Wiktionary than Wikipedia, with one suggesting that it could be made into an appendix. The list has since been formatted to use Wiktionary's templates, which is why there are red links rather than terms with transliterations and their concise definitions. (As I was writing this thread, I learned that the draft was changed to use Wikipedia's templates. The revision with Wiktionary's templates is here.) My next step is to decide on the introduction and how to order the terms. I understand that it could be sorted in categories (e.g. animal sounds), and, as one user pointed out, it could contain lemmas whose Wiktionary pages have not yet been created, but I would not know what the appendix should look like since I have never created one before. Is there anything else that I should know about creating appendices? FreeMediaKid! 00:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid! Hi, I'm not sure if what you are describing is necessary, as we already do have Category:Japanese onomatopoeias. If you know one that seems to be missing, you can add it. brittletheories (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to be honest, I need someon'es help with anything from the basics or how to navigate through terminology (site's "lingo") used here because i don't understand a lot of it. I personally have strong interests in the growth and understanding of language(s) and would be interested in helping with this important project. I would sincerely appreciate anyone's help or response! Thank you 69.169.8.154 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen Wiktionary:Welcome,_newcomers? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

hello, where do I find an overview over technical terms relating to article structure, e.g. the main introductory text before the table of content?

Greetings, --Utonsal (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

WT:EL may be the best overview. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)