Template talk:FWOTD
Part of speech[edit]
It may be a bit confusing if we denote nouns with n. as we use a very similar notation to specify neuter gender. Perhaps writing the part of speech out in full, or at least with a few more letters, would be clearer. And should the gender of the word also be included on the line, where applicable? —CodeCat 22:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, but this is how WOTD does it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The English WOTD doesn't have to contend with genders so there is less danger of confusion. Maybe this is a good reason to change that practice for WOTD as well, even if it's only to avoid using n.. —CodeCat 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was not intending to specify gender in this template, because that seems to be too much information (if they care, they can check the entry in a single click). I think the focus is on what the word means, and how it is said and written. We can write out noun, though. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't think so either. Grammar information may be too much, and it is a slippery slope, especially when people start asking us to include even more information. I would prefer it if 'noun' were written out. After all, we already write conj. which is also four letters! —CodeCat 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What ought I to do, put in a #switch for n. → noun around {{{pos}}}?Never mind, it seems Ungoliant thinks we should just type noun as the argument, which is fine as well. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't think so either. Grammar information may be too much, and it is a slippery slope, especially when people start asking us to include even more information. I would prefer it if 'noun' were written out. After all, we already write conj. which is also four letters! —CodeCat 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was not intending to specify gender in this template, because that seems to be too much information (if they care, they can check the entry in a single click). I think the focus is on what the word means, and how it is said and written. We can write out noun, though. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The English WOTD doesn't have to contend with genders so there is less danger of confusion. Maybe this is a good reason to change that practice for WOTD as well, even if it's only to avoid using n.. —CodeCat 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Include a link to the main language category?[edit]
Should we include a link to the main category of a language? It could be something like: other words in this language or other words in French. —CodeCat 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- We can do that, although note that in many (most?) languages, the langcat is rather messy-looking and unimpressive. As part of our effort to include minor and endangered languages, we will try to limit how many terms in, say, French appear. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe an incentive to clean them up? :) I think it would make sense to include a link, especially to 'smaller' languages. After all, if our aim is to promote those languages, it helps to show hopeful editors where to start and what we already have. It might also make people curious about the language in general. Think of it as a 'see also' section for a whole language. —CodeCat 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the messiness to me is the lines that give you the error message to tell you that there is no Wiktionary in this language, the redlinks that say that this language doesn't have an index or an about page (because I can't find an active user with a good archiving bot and I don't always know enough to write an about page). If we really wanted a 'see also' for educational purposes, we'd link to w:Foo language. If there are go-getter would-be editors excited by seeing a word from their language and ready to contribute, they'll click the feedback link (and FWIW, I do watch WT:FEED). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example of such messiness? I'm not sure I understand. Expecting users who want to contribute to click 'feedback' is counterintuitive though. I certainly wouldn't have thought of that. Isn't there some discussion right now about setting up portals for languages? We could easily link to those. —CodeCat 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, seeing Category:Niuean language, for example, annoys me. Error messages and redlinks aplenty, and precious few entries. Linking to portals is great, except for the fact that they don't exist yet (although I would welcome a vote with that in mind).
Where else would they go? WT:ID? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC) - I don't see any error messages and only three red links... —CodeCat 00:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, not error messages. Just None.s. Oh, and only 40 or so entries. I guess I'm being oversensitive. Ungoliant, what do you say? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- No strong opinion, but I prefer a link to the WP article on the language. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, not error messages. Just None.s. Oh, and only 40 or so entries. I guess I'm being oversensitive. Ungoliant, what do you say? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, seeing Category:Niuean language, for example, annoys me. Error messages and redlinks aplenty, and precious few entries. Linking to portals is great, except for the fact that they don't exist yet (although I would welcome a vote with that in mind).
- Can you give me an example of such messiness? I'm not sure I understand. Expecting users who want to contribute to click 'feedback' is counterintuitive though. I certainly wouldn't have thought of that. Isn't there some discussion right now about setting up portals for languages? We could easily link to those. —CodeCat 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the messiness to me is the lines that give you the error message to tell you that there is no Wiktionary in this language, the redlinks that say that this language doesn't have an index or an about page (because I can't find an active user with a good archiving bot and I don't always know enough to write an about page). If we really wanted a 'see also' for educational purposes, we'd link to w:Foo language. If there are go-getter would-be editors excited by seeing a word from their language and ready to contribute, they'll click the feedback link (and FWIW, I do watch WT:FEED). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe an incentive to clean them up? :) I think it would make sense to include a link, especially to 'smaller' languages. After all, if our aim is to promote those languages, it helps to show hopeful editors where to start and what we already have. It might also make people curious about the language in general. Think of it as a 'see also' section for a whole language. —CodeCat 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
More features[edit]
I'm just going to put stuff here as I think of it. For now, I'm thinking of an [edit] button, like the one {{WOTD}} has (but probably not by the same mechanism). Is this possible to implement, maybe in a discreet corner? I would find it very convenient. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Input sanitation[edit]
This template should generate error if the part of speech is in an incorrect form, contains a typo or something of that sort. This can easily be done with a switch. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)