Template talk:LDL

The language code parameter is great, Msh210! I thought of a solution earlier that does the same thing but saves a little time. Could this be merged into {{head}}? It could be another argument, and it could use the langcode argument to extract the ISO code and save us the trouble. What do you think? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Metaknowledge/scratch has {{LDL}} at the bottom, and I think I like it there (or just beneath the ==Language== header). Putting it between the ===POS=== and the headword would I think be unattractive. If others disagree and want it before the headword, I'm not sure merging it with the headword template is way to go anyway, especially inasmuch as various language-POS combos have specialized headword templates that are more convenient to use (for those terms) than {{head}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought perhaps someone with greater technical knowledge than me wouldbe able to place the box at will, even once merged. Ah well--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we will need {{LDL-sense}} (which I'm calling that after {{rfv-sense}} and similar templates) for when only a sense or several, but not all, are included due to the exemption.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we just use {{rfv}} and {{rfv-sense}} as usual, and note that it's an LDL in its section on RFV? Remember, LDLs almost never crop up on RFV (I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen, to be honest). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think msh210 means we'd use {{LDL-sense}} for e.g. an Äynu word with two senses, one of which was supported by < 3 quotations, but the other of which was supported by 5 quotations. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Probably a good idea, although I'm sure it will be rarely (if ever) used. If {{LDL-sense}} turns up as a bluelink, it means I've made it, and I'll be soliciting your comments. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks, -sche.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June–August 2024

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Template:LDL

Template:LDL-sense

These are templates which are supposed to be entered on any entry which is:

1. for one of the WT:Limited Documentation Languages, which is every language that's not on the list at WT:WDL (i.e. 99% of them); and
2. doesn't have at least three citations (i.e. 99.9% of them).

In practice, the vast majority of LDLs don't use them in a single one of their entries, and unless we're going to mass-add them to hundreds of thousands of pages, I don't think keeping them around in a half-hearted fashion is serving any useful purpose. In fact, it could mislead readers into thinking the few entries which do have them are exceptional in some way, as so few entries have either of these. For instance, at Template talk:LDL back in 2012, @-sche said {{LDL-sense}} is for e.g. an Äynu word with two senses, one of which was supported by < 3 quotations, but the other of which was supported by 5 quotations, which feels like a hopelessly fantastical scenario given that Category:Äynu terms with quotations is still a redlink 12 years on.

I can see why they were created, as they sound like a good idea in theory, but the past decade has shown that we can do very well without them, and I don't think it would improve the dictionary to stick big green banners on every entry for most smaller languages. It's perfectly fine for us to explain at WT:CFI that we have different requirements for WDLs and LDLs. Theknightwho (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I've always felt this template was a bit silly, especially because it is applied very haphazardly. It would be more useful to have a template with a narrower scope and more explicit wording (and a less vomitous colour scheme) specifically to mark that the term in question is only supported by a single source and caution is needed. Depending on the language, finding the word in two independently collected word lists might be a gold standard, but this template would have you think it was always problematic. (As for Äynu, given its apparent function as a cryptolect used by adult men to "keep their communications secret from outsiders" (WP) and its geographic location in Xinjiang, I'd be surprised if anyone could find 5 independent sources for this lect at all.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeahhh... My recollection is that at the time we adopted the lower threshold for inclusion for smaller languages, some people were very concerned about indicating to readers that LDL words didn't meet the [until-then-]usual threshold for inclusion and were less 'reliable', and so 'we'll prominently mark them like this' was a concession to get as many people as possible on board with 'a ton of words will no longer be subject to the 3-use rule'. Over the years, it has not seemed like readers actually mind words from small languages being subject to lower thresholds for inclusion (indeed, some would seem to prefer that we also allow English words based only on single uses or mentions in dictionaries, hah), and arguably the lower threshold is the 'usual'/expected threshold now, since it applies to the majority of languages, as TKW says. I don't mind this template (nor do I mind deleting it), but you two are probably right that trying to apply it to so large a fraction of our entries is ... well, clearly not something people have maintained and done. In any cases where we have particular reason to suspect a particular definition may be wrong, we should probably explain that more specifically, e.g. in usage notes. (BTW I didn't get that ping, because it wasn't added in the same edit as a signature.) - -sche (discuss) 15:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that {{LDL}} is used very rarely, and would support removing the de jure requirement that we have for it in WT:CFI. AG202 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. It is more explained with historical anxiety of editors than logical or dictionary-economical demand. Like how will anyone “consider adding citations” if there are “fewer than three known examples of actual usage”? Or how likely is that anyone reading the message considers editing the entry because he “speaks [the language]”, and would this change the attestation situation? (Not going to happen.) Then it presumes that the editor knows how many examples of the language in question exist. This was written from the perspective of someone who is doing actual linguistic field studies (Metaknowledge), who would create new documentation of a language. This is laudable, but can hardly be entered directly into the dictionary without background checks of the putative LDL speaker at least (including continuous monitoring of his mental health and personality and stuff to ascertain the reliability of the data, here we see again that the assessment of content depends on the person), thus until that point we tend more towards philology. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)