Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE

Too much information

An ad hoc label and the underscore can be explained at Template talk:context. I would want to see a really good use of the underscore before listing it there. Putting this information on ELE is controversial because, for instance, in this case it suggests that Northern,_,US is the correct way to regionalize the term. I submit it is not. DAVilla 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the best way at the moment, since the most detailed relevant category is Category:US. But the example is at risk that Category:Northern American English were to be created. It does work for now, but I'll change it if a better one occurs (perhaps some regionalism so specific that it is unlikely to ever warrant a category).

This type of example helps stress the use of atomic labels in context's parameters: knowing which labels and categories exist, we can use {Northern|_|US} to insert cat:US, but I often see things like {Northern US} which leave entries uncategorized. (Creating a set of the basic regional categories and labels for anglophone countries is on my long list.)

Perhaps I'll add make sure the full treatment is in the template docs, then remove some cases from here. Might be a day or two before I have time. —Michael Z. 2009-04-01 19:36 z

Actually {{context|Northern US}} wouldn't be any worse because the template can always be created after the fact. It would be easier to create that than to sift through all the US entries. But come to think of it should be permissible to employ compass directions with regions, if that could be more correct. I just wish these were more settled, and don't really like advertising ad hoc solutions in the meantime. DAVilla 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Compass directions worry me, because they are not regions, hence they do not categorize regionally.

For example, one template was being used to label linguistically and geographically unrelated Northern English and Northern Tatar. Carolina was thinking of using the same template for Northern Catalan, but I advised creating a new template. I separated the regions by creating {{Northern England}} and {{Northern Crimea}}. So now, Category:Northern England English and a hypothetical Category:Northern England Romany could both be placed in Category:UK (or Category:England or Category:Northern England).

Anyway, in the next week or two I will do a bit of research to define some subnational dialect categories for the British Isles and North America at least. I'll try to base it on real-world dictionary labels and dialectal atlases. I'd hope that would help moot the issue for a while. But maybe not, because even though we don't have the broader categories for English Midlands and West Country, we do have a few individual counties already in use.

I know, too much information. In summary, I agree with you that we should be permissive in defining dialect regions at a finer scale. —Michael Z. 2009-04-03 00:25 z

The problem I'm worried about is analogous to {context|Northern|_|UK} turning into (Northern British), especially since ight now there's talk about whether US is appropriate. Better to hash this out then try to generalize. I'm not knowledgeable enough to categorize the dialects, but it does need eyes like yours. DAVilla 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a look over Template talk:context#Documentation. It mainly describes how to use {context|whatever}, rather than the standard practice of {whatever}. It would have to be rewritten, but is that really the right place for this? That template is just a technical vehicle, but we really need a general page about best practices and techniques for Wiktionary:Context labels.

Good idea, I'll go ahead and move some things around. It talks about {context} because it was initially set up that way only, not such that the tags could be used independently. DAVilla 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But you are right, only the technical basics belong at ELE. I'll revise the proposal. —Michael Z. 2009-04-03 02:19 z

Categorization

This includes the admonition that context labels "must not be used merely for categorization". (Followed by a link which doesn't work.) But why not? I think that often context labels are an excellent way of doing exactly that. It's not so much an issue with English-language entries, where I agree context labels seem to indicate specialized jargon, but with foreign-language entries they are a very common and efficient way of showing different realms of usage. Consider a page like (deprecated template usage) manchon, where the context labels seem to me to be infinitely preferable to long-winded bracketed explanations, even though none of the senses is really jargon. Ƿidsiþ 07:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

These are called usage labels in lexicography, and they indicate restricted usage. Same in Wiktionary. See label, usage label.

In the example, these labels are not only being used to place the entry into categories, but also as a substitute for writing a clear definition. Both are wrong.

The example implies that the word manchon for muff is only used by clothing designers or something, or only when the topic of conversation is clothing, or only when wearing clothing, or something, and that it is only a coupler in the field of “technology”. This is confusing and misleading. I don't see how using these in a non-standard way in foreign-language headings can be preferable to writing a clear description including a phrase like “an article of clothing”. —Michael Z. 2009-05-11 13:53 z