Talk:kalsarikänni

If you know an equivalent or similar English term, please add the translation! --Hekaheka (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish I did! Equinox ◑ 00:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * : is citable in books by Miska Rantanen, and by extension on the BBC and a host of other news sites. ;-) -Stelio (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

, this was nominated to be a FWOTD on Finland's independence day, but that seemed to me like it might not be appropriate... is there a better day? Also, the quotes could use translations. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Phew!! Good thinking!
 * I'd need some help with the translations. Is "boxer boozing" actually used in English? If it isn't and there's no better term, does it convey the correct idea to an English-speaker? I mean, is intuitively understood? If the answer is "yes", what's the verb - to "boxer booze", to "do (some) boxer boozing" or simply to "drink at home alone"? The last one might be defendable, because AFAIK "kalsarit" is used metaphorically as a symbol for being at home alone rather than as a reference to drinker's actual outfit.
 * A better day? Perhaps one when many people go out drinking, to which kalsarikännit might be an alternative. Such nights include New Year's Eve and 30th of April (the eve of 1st of May). Perhaps Valentine's Day in honor of the poor guy who didn't get his. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In cases like these, it may not be possible to make faithful, literal translations that also translate the word in question. I'd say it's appropriate to simply put the Finnish kalsarikänni in italics in the English translations, but I'll see if any better solution occurs to me. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gave it a shot. "Boxer boozing" is used at least in one printed work (English translation of Juoppohullun päiväkirja), so I think it deserves to be mentioned. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused — 2001 is lacking a translation, and 2017 is lacking Finnish! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 09:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because 2017 book is a translation of the 2001 book. I couldn't figure out how to do this using "quote-book". --Hekaheka (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it isn't. I can't find Leonard Pearl in BGC. I guess one should ask from the person who contributed the quotes. Anyway, it's clear that the English quote is a translation of the Finnish quote.--Hekaheka (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the quote still confusing? I think "quote" -template should be developed further in order to better accommodate published translations of non-English sources. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense now. Thank you so much! may be able to assist with the quote template. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes people, I always wanted to have a parameter for translated text. So if I quote a German translation of a Russian work, I can quote both and translate into English. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 12:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not really following what the quotation requires. Could someone explain? — SGconlaw (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently the templates only support one reference, the quoted text and one translation. We would like it if we could reference and quote existing English translations in addition to that; on the other hand I noted that we should be able to quote original text in addition to translations of texts. Say if someone quotes the Ethiopic Bible for Ge'ez and wants to give the Hebrew text too. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 14:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still a little unclear about what is desired – what does "reference and quote existing English translations in addition to that" mean? Perhaps you can provide an example. As for the situation regarding the Ethiopic Bible, can the transliteration parameter be used? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it think it is clear on the page what they want: Juha Vuorinen has written something in Finnish, Leonard Pearl has translated it – but they cannot well reference the translation in the templates, using parameters correctly.
 * As for my Ethiopic Bible example, obviously transliteration is for transliterations. It would be a pity to have no transliteration just because one abuses the parameter for giving the translation source.
 * One wants this if one creates Ge'ez entries: 1. the source text in Hebrew 2. the Ge'ez translation which is a source in itself, for Ge'ez 3. the transliteration for the Ge'ez, which happens automatically btw 4. an English translation.
 * Both situations can be combined in one template, it appears to me. It is a bit unfortunate that the quotation templates already use the names passage, transliteration, translation only. What we need is text1, text2, text3, transliteration1, transliteration2, and so on, and similarly extensions are needed for the other fields. This probably means that a new template for complicated uses should be devised to grandfather the old uses (because those not so common uses do not justify remaking the old ones but nonetheless the uses are by themselves important). Provisory name: . What do you think, ? I esteem it valuable infrastructure. And also and  to make sure they know what is going on here. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

For the quotation in the Finnish entry, have a look at the edit I made. For the Ethiopic Bible example, can I suggest that you provide an example? I think this is a language issue – I don't mean to insult you in any way, but English doesn't seem to be your first language so I'm having some trouble fully understanding what you want to achieve. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * . Needless to say that I am not happy with it; and in your example overleaf you already reach the fringes of pretty syntax. No language issue here, it is getting complicated. We are reaching a new dimension here. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 00:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I edited the quotation at ; have a look here. However, on thinking about the matter further, I think that it would only be in rare situations that it would be necessary to provide three (or more) versions of a text. For example, at Imbiss, since what is needed is a quotation to illustrate the German word, I wouldn't think it is necessary to give the original Russian text. The German translation should be enough. Therefore, I'm not sure the work required to add more parameters to the and  templates is warranted. I'm happy to hear further thoughts on this. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, it would be a big plus for Wiktionary in comparison to other dictionaries, or in other words a competitive advantage, . In my opinion we should do three-language quotations because we can, or WT:NOTPAPER. For less attested, dead languages, it might be more required, though the reader might even find it helpful that the German word has served for translating  – it would acknowledge that the more languages one knows the easier it is to learn another. Consider Gothic where most of the corpus is translated from the Ancient Greek bible. For studying the Gothic language, it is important to know which Greek words Ulfilas translated. Similarly with Ethiopic. And don’t you like parallel corpora?
 * If you do not esteem it that useful, there is of course also the option to hide it so that one has to click one time to see the first and second translations and a second time to see the original text; maybe it is true that people are overwhelmed by seeing three texts when there could be two or one. I like the format you have made now at, the indentation is good and I have no objections to HTML. It almost looks perfect to me, but now there is this issue that apparently we cannot show more than two years: The original drama is from the year 1832, which is important for context as the translation still plays in Russia 1832, while the text that contains the lemma is from 1913, which is important for the attestation of the lemma and should be the bold-printed one, and the edition which has published the quote is from 1934, which is bibliographically relevant. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I can see the value of what you're proposing. I've wanted something like this in the past. Unfortunately, I'm far too confused by the quote templates to know how to add it. — Eru·tuon 02:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can do some new thing in a schematic way (if you edit the current templates nobody will understand the result anyway …):
 * the reference to the original text quoted (would in my Pushkin example be the original publication data)
 * an edition referenced where it can be found (comparable to newversion; could in this example be a Pushkin edition linked))
 * the reference to the translation quoted (Henry von Heiseler 1913 Die Russalka)
 * an edition referenced where it is found (comparable to newversion; would be here the 1934 edition Sämtliche Dramen)
 * the reference to the translation of both quoted (mostly not extant if the editor translates)
 * an edition referenced where it is found (comparable to newversion, mostly not extant if the editor translates)
 * the original passage
 * the translation of it
 * the translation of both


 * If it is schematic enough, extensions are made provision for – we might later want to add in some way textual variants etc. with some Javascript menus etc., so we can do things like Corpus Coranicum and whole synopses, but it is of course exaggerated to do all at the beginning. What can be solved realistically with a new thing are the needed line breaks in metrical works.


 * Nobody seems to be bothered by a new template as shown in, and tbh a redesign is necessary to avoid the big ball of mud. Feel free to use my quote at for testing around, it’s there to serve all demonstrations (well except Bidi problems in the quotation templates about which I could sing a song …). Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 03:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I'm still not convinced there is that much need for such a complicated quotation involving multiple texts that cannot be accommodated by the current  templates. For example, why isn't the template now in use at  sufficient? — SGconlaw (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think putting the German translation in the same parameter as the English translation is a very good solution. The template doesn't do this now, but any non-English quotations should be appropriately language- and script-tagged using Module:script utilities, and that cannot be done by the quotation template if the German quotation is with the English translation. (It could be done by putting inside the parameter.) In addition, this method will be harder to remember than a dedicated parameter would be, and it would be hard to regularize the formatting or change it in the future: people trying to add a quotation plus a non-English translation plus an English translation have to somehow find out and remember that your method is the way to do it, and they are likely to make mistakes. And if anyone wants to change the formatting of the second quotation (non-English translation), they will have to try to somehow find all the instances in which the translation parameter was used in this way and edit each one individually. A dedicated parameter would be much better. — Eru·tuon 00:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, though, we have to figure out what is the best format to display three different works and the corresponding texts. I think for two works what appears at and  is OK, but for three works I'm not sure if the following format works:
 * [Imprint infomation for original work]; republished as [imprint information for second work]; translated as [imprint information as third work]:
 * [Text of original work]
 * [Text of second work]
 * [Text of translation].
 * Should each level of quoted text be indented? How do we deal with a situation where the translation is the second quotation rather than the third? But overall, I remain unconvinced that we need to cater for such a level of complexity. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have any opinion about the formatting yet. I'd have to see examples.
 * I'm puzzled what you're saying about ; it has three texts (original Russian, German translation, English translation), not two. The German translation is the one that I think needs a new parameter., however, has two and looks fine to me as is.
 * What do you mean by "the translation [being] the second quotation rather than the third"? Do you mean something like "German, English translation, another English translation"? — Eru·tuon 03:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I didn't express myself well. At the moment, the template caters for three types of quoted text and I believe they are displayed in this order: original text, transliteration, and translation. The original text is indented by one tab stop from the left margin, and transliterations and translations are indented by two. However, if we start having multiple original texts, transliterations and translations, I am wondering how they should be indented. I haven't really thought through this. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The indentation is the least problem here. The valid structure of the served code is sacrificed if we use a parameter for multiple languages (I don’t know though why the quotation templates do not use language parameters, for Arabic I always have to put the quoted Arabic and the translation in a separate  as  has showed me at some point to get the correct size of the script – it certainly would not be bad if we were able to specify the language for each passage explicitly, though for categorization like in Category:Arabic terms with quotations one has somehow to specify the language one provides the quotes for – German, if in – if we have a mechanism for more-than-two passages, though I see little use in these categories) and the whole thing looks further randomly sorted in its publication data part too – if not unprofessionally –, from the outer appearance, as this is nothing one would ever see in a book nor think in his mind in this order (it begins weirdly “1913 April 11 [1832], Александръ Пушкинъ” and continues to be weird), as well as in the source code, as such a mixture of subsidiary parameters is hard to read enough to be immemorable if not impermeable, without needless HTML in the Wikitext or Unicode hacks needing to confirm the horror. To be short, we do not want to trade code sanity with visual amenability: Practicability requires a thorough redesign, else the result is of course that one is less likely to format correctly and to quote translations, let alone add more-than-two-language texts. After all were are talking about the infrastructure for coming generations – this is the dictionary that is supposed to surpass all others.  Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 13:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At the time I worked on the  family of templates, I tried to stick closely to the format of the quotations as they existed at that time. I have to disagree that it is "weird"; the reason why the year of publication is indicated first is so that the use of the term through time can be tracked by the reader. I also don't think the parameters of the templates are "immemorable if not impermeable". Just read the instructions on the template description page for information on how to use them. However, feel free to start a wider discussion at the Beer Parlour or a vote if you want to propose a change to the way quotations are formatted. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * the year of publication is indicated first is so that the use of the term through time can be tracked by the reader – why do you tell me this? It is this what I agree with too, what I have made on to be there myself, but that what follows, and the whole reference section, is not the finest to parse for a reader nor for somebody who writes code. The concept of a newversion is confusing if it is by itself a first version what you quote, the documentation is incomplete btw because the template for example supports page2 without explicitly listing it in the table (it should only just write that it supports all the parameters with a 2 after it, or no?), the origdate 1832 is only loosely associated with anything as understood by whoever uses it and whoever reads the quotation: Origdate of what? The translation or the text underlying it? Clearly nobody has thought about translations when devising this template.
 * As I have found out, it is this what is imaginable and the logically possible structure (picture below!):
 * # we have the actual text we quote
 * # we cite the book where it is found or which we quote (distinguished by its date, but the bold date must be No. 1’s date
 * # then only we add – possibly only, because the quote for the L2 we are in is the required only – the underlying text of it, with a year of its original publication and a cite of the book where the original text we quote can be found
 * # and then we add the translation of both
 * # if the translation is not by us, we cite a third book where the translation is found (as on kalsarikänni)
 * Mixed into this is the problem of the language recognition.
 * The year of the quote is clearly a separate unit from the publication data, it has to stand out, but the names of the parameters and as a consequence of it the documentations are a mess. It says about month: The year (and month), or date, that the book was published. Which is obviously not true, because this is year published, about which it is said: the year when the original version of the book was published – isn’t that origyear? Or what is obvious? I don’t know, I am confused by all these cross-references without the needed abstraction, and these names are surely a reason why Erutuon said he cannot see through either.
 * I don’t necessarily want that the behavior i. e. appearance of the template changes, for it seems like only one parameter for the text of the translation of the translation has to be added and a possibility to cite more and some language code stuff so the scripts are handled correctly. But there is some abstraction in the naming to be done.
 * I try to picture what I abstract:
 * 1913 1832 Александръ Пушкинъ, Русалка
 * edition by Ivan Ivanov: Александръ Пушкинъ, Русалка, Tsarskoye Selo 1900
 * 1913 Henry von Heiseler, Die Russalka
 * edition in Sämtliche Dramen Leipzig 1934
 * PASSAGE IN RUSSIAN
 * PASSAGE IN GERMAN
 * PASSAGE IN ENGLISH
 * And this can be extended infinitely dependent on how many translations preceded the translation (as when you quote a Latin thing that is from Greek that is from Hebrew), and considering that one can show multiple translations (considering how many translations there are of Miguel de Cervantes).
 * PASSAGE IN SPANISH
 * PASSAGE IN ENGLISH BY PETER MOTTEAUX (1712)
 * PASSAGE IN ENGLISH BY CHARLES JARVIS (1748)
 * PASSAGE IN ENGLISH BY WALTER STARKIE (1954)
 * To which there are of course cites to make in the head part.
 * Not talking about whether and where a vote or so is required and whether it dovetails with the current template(s), don’t you see this as advantageous? And how would one have implemented  if one had thought this way from the beginning? Well, maybe what is actually needed are comparisons side-on-side in three columns and not text-under-text, to give another option. I feel like I am inventing a text-critics markup language Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)