Language desk
< August 28	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 29

Word selection

Hi

I'd like to know that Do we "make" a decision or "take" a decision?

Thanks (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.43.19 (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Make" would be the most common word there, by far, although you could "take a decision" in certain contexts, such as "I will take your decision to the board for review". StuRat (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Make a decision" is almost always the phrase used in American English. In British English, "Take a decision" can be encountered to some extent. In countries which aren't primarily English speakers, "Take a decision" can also be encountered due to literal translations of the local versions. All of them are used for the meaning of "to decide". See OED definition.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, you can "make" or "take" a decision. Both sound right to me. But in the past tense, "no decision has been taken" or "a decision was taken" is I believe, more commonly used than "was made". Don't know why. Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This forum discussion seems to mostly be on the same thing. RE: Alansplodge - I'm British also and I almost flick between them without noticing. I think I'm more likely to say "made" if there's an adjective involved ("He made the right decision") but "take" in such things as "I took the decision to do such-and-such". Really hard to put my finger on if I'm applpying a rule. In any case, I wouldn't notice if someone used one or the other, they parse exactly the same. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. An oddity of our language - one of many. Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

symbols

Does anybody know anything about the three symbols on this house? I have also seen them on a Muslim gravestone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.132.131 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The symbols being "<^4" ? StuRat (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the numbers 786 in Urdu numerals (Arabic: ٧٨٦). In Islamic numerology 786 is a kind of shorthand for the phrase Basmala or Bismillah - "God is Great", used particularly in India and Pakistan. See our article Basmala#Numerology and the same markings in an old coin: [1] [2] -- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.132.131 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, the full phrase of Bismillah means "In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". I confused it with Takbir. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context and content

What is the difference between context and content? It is stated in WP:Speedy Delete that context is different from content, but it doesn't show clearly what is context and what is content. Any help is appreciated, thank you. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of a Wikipedia article, content is what the article says about the topic itself, whereas context is what situates the topic in the encyclopedia and tells people what the topic actually is. For example, an article could have 100,000 words of detailed description about some person's life (and thus have a lot of content), but never say "X is an actor" or something like that; such an article would have content but lack context. Likewise, an article about some mathematical concept (for example) may have lots of detailed formulae and theory, but never clearly state to a lay reader what the concept is actually about and how it relates to math in general; this is another example of an article with lots of content but insufficient context. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of context is when you look at an article and go "WTF is this article talking about?". i.e. the content is understandable English but it gives no explanation as to why it's related to the subject or even what the subject is.

Examples:

Article title: Machine gun
Content: Lemonade is delicious. Lemonade is made with lemon and water and some sugar. It is usually sold in lawns during the summer.

Article title: John Doe
Content: Soon, the river became the primary means of exporting the large hogsheads of this cash crop from an ever-growing number of plantations with wharfs along its banks. This development made the proprietary efforts of the Virginia Company of London successful financially, spurring even more development, investments and immigration. Below the falls at Richmond, many James River plantations had their own wharfs, and additional ports and/or early railheads were located at Warwick, Bermuda Hundred, City Point, Claremont, Scotland, and Smithfield, and, during the 17th century, the capital of the Colony at Jamestown.

Lack of content is when you look at an article and only see one or a few sentences that basically say nothing more than what the title already makes clear, or has absolutely nothing in it at all, except some links or a category.

Example:

Article title: King Kookles of Kookland
Content: Kookles is the King of Kookland

Article title: Kittens in leotards
Content: www.kittensinleotards.com

-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there no simpler way of answering his question without typing all of that out? (very clear, though!) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian cartoon

Does anyone know enough Serbian to translate the text in this cartoon? I think I have the gist of it, but I need a verbatim translation. Many thanks. LANTZY ^TALK 21:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get an answer here, you might try sending a message to one of the active editors at Wikiproject Serbia. --Viennese Waltz 07:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Gay activist) "Let's write protest letters to Đilas"; "Let us hope that will influence him"
(Đilas) "I can't... anymore... look at these... pink letters... with flowers... and kisses"; "I surrender... there will be the gay-parade!"
(Memo on his desk reads) "Reminder: Ask the hooligans who has the right to public gathering"

I presume Lantzy knows the context, but for the remaining public: Đilas is the mayor of Belgrade, who recently wasn't too sympathetic for the 2011 Gay Pride, because the last year it caused hooligan and right-winger riots, resulting in major damage to the city. No such user (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LANTZY ^TALK 19:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]