Wiktionary:Information desk/2018/December

Alternate Spellings and Non-Oxford British English
On the page on the page monetise is listed as an alternate spelling of monetize. In a similar but different vein authorise is listed as a of authorize "Non-Oxford British English standard spelling" and generally a more extensive page. Is there a specific reason that these two cases are being treated differently, such as policy? —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 05:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, there is no fixed rule for this, but some people get upset if their preferred form isn't the main one, so we even have complete duplicate entries in some cases. Equinox ◑ 05:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a policy, but a practice that many of us follow/advocate: leave things the way they are. Don't change a main entry to a regional alternative-form entry (or vice versa). That gives people an incentive to create the entries in the first place and discourages pondian edit-wars. I and at least some other US admins routinely revert attempts to switch the main form from British to US, and British admins routinely revert attempts to switch the other way. The reason no policy exists is that there are good reasons on both sides, so there's no irrefutable objective choice, only two subjective ones that no one can agree on.  My experience is that nobody wins such disputes, so it's better to avoid them entirely. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess in my mind it would be best for there to be one entry, and converting what is currently situated as the secondary entry, in this case authorise, into something more similar to monetise. I can understand that some users would get upset over implied preference or correctness. I also think that reformatting authorise in a similar way to monetise would be generally beneficial because it would prevent inevitable entry divergence between authorise and authorize. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 06:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Setting aside which spelling should have definitions and which should be a "soft redirect", let me answer your question about "alternative spelling" vs "standard spelling", since that's simpler. If a spelling is the standard (prescribed/normative) spelling in a particular standardized variety of English, then it's more accurate/explanatory to use the more specific template. Because that template was only created in 2013, prior to which only  existed, many entries like monetise still use the more generic template ― but that can usually be changed without a fuss. ("non-Oxford British English" is a bit of a Franken-descriptor not everyone likes, but it aims to distinguish -ise forms from Oxford [British] English that does use -ize.) Moving pronunciation information out of authorise and into the lemma entry is also OK, to avoid divergence, as you say. - -sche (discuss) 07:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think I understand much better now. With all that it mind would it most make sense for monetise to be changed to this:

Anagrams



 * (If there is some better way I could have pasted this in or formatted it I would be interested to know) —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 16:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out what you are trying to say. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Where the apprentice wrote “would it most make sense for monetise to be changed to”, I am sure they meant to write that it “would make more sense for authorise to be changed to”, an idea implemented in this edit. --Lambiam 19:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, User:Lambiam, thats exactly what I meant, thank you for interpretting. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 03:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Usage of graceful in the context of computing
In the context of computing, the word graceful can sometimes mean in a gradual and non-disruptive manner, e.g. graceful shutdown / graceful restart, which is in my opinion, beyond the current definition Having or showing grace in movement, shape, or proportion.

However, as a non-native speaker, I'm not so sure about this. Do you think this should be included as a second definition? And if so, how would you phrase this definition? Thanks. --ZypA13510 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, should be added. ✅ Added with a book citation for "graceful shutdown". We also already had graceful degradation. Equinox ◑ 02:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Handling agent-focus forms of nouns in Malayan Languages
I have found that in Malay and Indonesian, a meng- prefix is added to verbs for, according to Wiktionary, agent focus. Generally I have seen headers say (used in the form meng_) when referring to that form of noun, and editors create seperate entries for them. My question is, as I haven’t found any policy or guideline pages about Malay or Indonesian, are such edits correct, with respect to the actual usage of this prefix? Are we doomed to have to create seperate prefixed entries of every single verb in Malay? Muchthanks. Desaccointier(talk) 06:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (alias User:Epichaericacianus) For Malay and Indonesian, we have to refer to the Kamus Dewan and Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (KBBI) respectively to verify the existence of a certain lemma. Not all nouns will have the form, and separate entries are created only if the prefixed term can be found in any reputable dictionary or if the term is attestable in local radio, television or printed publications. Also, note that "agent focus" is a generalization, and some prefixed terms end up with a completely different meaning — compare Malay  and . KevinUp (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Substitution of templates
You can't substitute templates like you can on Wikipedia, can you? I tried to susubstitute Template:zh-see, but it didn't work out well.
 * No, and there's no reason for you to do so in 99.9% of cases. DTLHS (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can, but it has to be one that's designed for substituting, which most aren't. If the template's documentation doesn't say it can be substituted, assume it can't be. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright for illustration from 1970s USDA publication?
I would like to include the photo of the dryland sodder at this page, but am uncertain what the situation is with USDA publications; any ideas?

Publication date 1978.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=SOUoAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA3-PA42&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=dryland%20sodder&f=false

Thanks, I hope JonRichfield (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If this qualifies as a USDA publication, that is, it is, it is in the public domain. The inside of the book gives me no confidence that it should qualify as such. It is the report of a workshop, which is stated to be “an organization of Federal and State agencies and private groups ”, and it consists of the contributions of the participants. However, the particular contribution that has a picture of a dryland sodder, entitled “BLM’s Equipment Development Program for Revegetating Disturbed Lands”, is by the late Dick Hallman (died 2012), who worked for the Missoula Equipment Development Center (MEDC), one of the EDCs of the . So it should be exempt of copyright. If the picture was not taken by him or else under the direction of someone from the MEDC, it must have come from the , an agency of the USDI. In either case, it is in the public domain. --Lambiam 15:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

may the Force be with you
-84.161.0.247 19:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Knows somebody a source for the translations into LDLs like Frisian, Hessisch, Latin, Navajo? Was some Star Wars thingy translated into several LDLs like Asterix or Harry Potter?
 * What's "Ærisk Friesk"? Because of -sk, ø and æ it looks like it could be a Danish term.
 * The editor who added those probably shouldn't have. Anytime I see someone adding translations in a dozen assorted off-the-beaten-track languages like that, it makes me very nervous. I'm guessing they got them from a) other wikis b) some kind of international Star Wars forum, or c) looking up individual words in dictionaries and guessing at the rest. Of those, a) & c) are a very bad idea for nonspeakers, and the middle one is bad because it probably involves someone, somewhere doing a) or c). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

[Dutch Ripuarian lacks a code too, but it seems obvious to be Ripuarian, which is part of Central Franconian (WT code: gmw-cfr), as spoken in the Netherlands.] -84.161.50.89 11:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Navajo term was used in the Navajo motion picture "Sǫʼtah Anah" (Star Wars). —Stephen (Talk) 20:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there are at least mentionings of it . is older than the WT entry and gives translations for Latin, Alsatian, Occitan - yet is unreliable like WT.
 * Just noticed that "Ærisk Friesk" is given without a language code in the source. There are Old Frisian (ofs), West Frisian (fy/fry), North Frisian (frr), East Frisian (-) including the last surviving form Saterland Frisian (stq), East Frisian Low German (part of nds), and "Town Frisian" (Dutch: Stadsfriesch, Stadfriesch, colloquial Stadsfries, Stadfries; -)... Maybe it should be RFVed...
 * “Ærisk Friesk”, or just “Ærisk”. is described on this mini wiki-enseklopeedje, written in Ærisk Friesk, as an unrecognized Frisian language spoken in Germany and the Netherlands. One of the sysops of that wiki is also active here and is admin at the Limburgish Wiktionary. --Lambiam 13:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Under "Aast-Ærisk" it has dialects for inter alia Delfzijl and Assen, so it is safe to assume that this is a private conlang. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)