Wiktionary talk:Project-Nogomatch

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Templates used on this page[edit]

Implemented templates[edit]

Sprucing up warnings[edit]

I would like to add some code to this page, also to MediaWiki:Noarticletext and maybe others such as MediaWiki:Searchdisabled as well.

  1. Big bold red blinking copyright warning.
  2. A "would you like to look this up in Wikipedia/$1" line.
  3. A "would you like to look this up in another Wiktionary" then pass parameter 1 to the 5-10 next largest wiktionaries
  4. A gentle reminder link to WT:CFI
  5. A helpful link to WT:ELE (with note: you may wish to open this in a separate window or tab.)
  6. A warning not to EVER submit material from http://www.dictionary.com/

Since this is the page displayed before you start editing, we have the whole screen to add links to other research type sites. This might even be a good place to include template:artfl, or any other on-line copy of Webster's 1913.

Comments PLEASE! --Connel MacKenzie 03:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Please add comments on this unprotected page. If making a comment on WT:BP, be sure to explain what you are talking about there first.

Comment 1: Go for it. I don't know what the abbreviations stand for, but it all sounds like improvements Polyglot 07:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just catching up now; I'm not sure how I missed this before. Thanks for the encouragement. "WS" is short for Wiktionary Shortcut, explained at WT:WS. So, WT:BP is a link to the Beer Parlor, WT:ELE is a link to Entry layout explained and WT:CFI is a link to the Criteria for inclusion. --Connel MacKenzie 13:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm experiencing writer's block on this one now. Anyone have suggestions on how ese extra warnings could/should be added? --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reminder

The copyright reminder got me stupefied the first time I saw it.

What am I supposed to have read?

An answer to one of the FAQ says you can quote if you give credit. Consider adding a wikilink.

  • Blinking

Of course, blinking is out of question, or WikiMedia Foundation will get sued by epileptics.

  • Dictionary.com

What makes this particular source of information worth a special mention? --Yecril 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiword entries[edit]

If anyone knows of a trick to make the url reference not break for multiple words, I'd love to hear it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Magic words. Try replacing
[{{lurl}}$1&action=edit&preload=Template:new_en_basic basic]
with
[{{fullurle:$1|action=edit&preload=Template:new_en_basic}} basic]
It might work, but then it might not. Worth testing at least. --Patrik Stridvall 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But it sent me to page $1 instead. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I should have tried [{{fullurle:{{{$1}}}|action=edit&preload=Template:new_en_basic}} basic] while I was at it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, that didn't work either. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Not sure why the first didn't work. --Patrik Stridvall 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, one could do as I did on sv: a few days ago - replacing the links with buttons like 


 <center>
 <inputbox>
 type=create
 preload=Template:new_en_basic
 break=no
 default=$1
 buttonlabel=basic   
 </inputbox>
 </center>

This yields:

I can confirm that this works at least on sv:... \Mike 08:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try this now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Just a pity it seems one can't get rid of the (unnecessary) associated text field... (there is a minimal width, so writing width=0 doesn't work...) \Mike 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, adapting the Inputbox extension to do that is quite easy. I have looked at the source code. --Patrik Stridvall 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also a pity I can't get rid of the preceding ":" on each of the entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that will be hard without changing MediaWiki
$wgOut->addWikiText( wfMsg('nogomatch', ":$term" ) );
Not sure why it adds the ":" though. There must be some reason... --Patrik Stridvall 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brion explained to me why some time ago, but I forget (and can't find that conversatin now...probably on IRC.) I think it had something to do with interwiki redirects. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

\Mike you are a genius! Thank you VERY MUCH! --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it looks like I need to add the combinations (plural+3rd person, noun+adj, etc) and get to work on revamping intermediate and advanced to conform to current standards. Horray! \Mike is AMAZING! --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. However we probably should write our own extension with support for multiple languages and whatever ever else we might need. Perhaps we could use categories to create the form dynamically. It might not be that hard... --Patrik Stridvall 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, your php skills are far beyond mine. Also, I haven't a clue where to begin with adding an extension. Have you done this before?
I have been a professional programmer for over 10 years with experience with PHP as well as a lot of other languages. PHP is definitely not my favorite language, but I have had clients that insisted on PHP. So yes, I know it pretty well. I have no experience with MediaWiki itself though. --Patrik Stridvall 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also I started the naming convention "Template:new_{language-code}_{POS/form}" to allow for other languages, but I am clueless on how to determine what someone's browser's default language is, in this context. Or perhaps, their default language from user preferences somewhere?
Yes, I noticed. Determining the default language from the user preferences is easy. I already know how. The problem is that MediaWiki:Nogomatch is not shown when I set Swedish as the default language. The default data is shown instead. Not sure why. Of course I only started to look a the source code of MediaWiki yesterday...
After looking more carefully at the source code I now understand why. If you set any other language than the main language (English) as the default language it tries to fetch a subpage. The "nogomatch" page for Swedish is called MediaWiki:Nogomatch/sv for example. --Patrik Stridvall 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of the Swedish language. Would you like me to enter {{sv_nogomatch}} into MediaWiki:Nogomatch/sv so you can play with it at Template:sv_nogomatch? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, should that be template:nogomatch_sv or Wiktionary:Project-sv-nogomatch or Wiktionary:Project-nogomatch/sv or what? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Not sure what is the best name. I would suggest that you put {{sv-nogomatch}} into MediaWiki:Nogomatch/sv. We can always change later. --Patrik Stridvall 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so. \Mike 13:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, wouldn't it make sense to use Swedish in that template, as it only should be visible as one uses "Svenska" in the preferences? (And hence makes "all" the interface into Swedish?) \Mike 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it not so much a matter of skill as it is a matter of time. Doing something advanced takes time and there seems to be some technical limitations on what mere extensions can do so perhaps hacking MediaWiki itself will be nessary to do something really advanced.
Just patching Inputbox to support hidden input fields is very trivial though. I do that kind of things almost every day. The problems lies more on where to send any patches... And of course setting up a test enviroment so I can test it properly so I don't lose credibility with whomever I send it to... I know from experience that even very simple patches that "can't possibly be wrong" needs to be tested. :-) --Patrik Stridvall 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may need to nominate you on WT:A so you can help with all this. It might be politically benefical if someone else made the nomination and I abstained though. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While, I probably would accept a nominatation, I'm not in any hurry. I have a lot of other things that I can do without being an administrator. I don't believe that chasing vandals will be a favorite passtime of mine. :-) Still I guess you need help... --Patrik Stridvall 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To hide the search field, you could add the line
.createboxInput {display: none;}
to MediaWiki:Monobook.css or MediaWiki:Common.css
Best regards, de:Melancholie 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: But don't do so if somewhere else the search field is necessary ;-)
I don't think we can hide that untill all the language sub-pages exist. I'm not sure I'd want to remove it, anyway. But thanks for the clever trick. I shall file that one away in my toolbox for future reference. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, are you just explaining that you need time to download the MediaWiki code base and install it before doing any experiments?

Yes. However, now I have done so and I have hacked together a quick patch. If you add "hidden=yes" it shows only the button. It seems to work. Now I just have to cleanup it up and try to find out where to send it. bugzilla.wikimedia.org seems to have a "bug" type called "Enhancements". So unless somebody have any better idea, I will try to submit it there. This will have to wait until Saturday or Sunday though... As to how to have it deployed here I have absolutely no idea... --Patrik Stridvall 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should do that at some point too...

I might be useful... It was VERY easy to install. --Patrik Stridvall 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting mired in the details of actual words and entries here on Wikt: instead. I don't have any very clever ideas on how to reformat this page now. I think what I've done to MediaWiki:Nogomatch looks messy and unattractive, but is efficient.

Is it worth considering removing general templates: new_en_basic, new_en_intermediate and new_en_advanced? The intermediate and advanced templates seem to cross paths with contested issues (WT:CFI, WT:ELE, WT:BP) representing the approved format from only a short period in time. The part-of-speech new_en_* templates have been maintained much better, so far.

Also, what do people think about adding the two templates: new_en_adj_noun and new_en_pl_third for entries that are 1) both adjectives and nouns and 2) both plural nouns and third person verb forms? The addition of those two would balance the POS table. That would at least partly address the attractiveness issue, right?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to think it through properly. At some point in the future I have plans to try to design something similar for Swedish. The technical issues also make the problem non-trivial. Of course we could always try to design some sort of MediaWiki extension or even modify MediaWiki itself. I certainly have the skill nessary to do it. Time is in much shorter supply though. --Patrik Stridvall 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "hidden=yes", perhaps MediaWiki:Monobook.js could hide them then? (I'm assuming your Javascript is a million times better than mine, of course.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However, doing it using Javascript would be a serious kludge IMNSHO. The .css hack above is bad enough... Note that .css hack would prevent other pages of using the Inputbox properly and while doing it in Javascript might work around that problem it would be very very ugly. Whether I could do it or not is beside the point since I would refuse to it that way as a matter of principle. --Patrik Stridvall 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has grown out of the developers focusing on Wikipedia whilst seemingly ignoring other projects - at least that was the perception at one time. Please don't ever look at User:Connel MacKenzie/monobook.js.  :-) There has been a lot done here in the name of expediency. A very great deal of it is kludgy. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I have been guilty of doing things in the name of expendiency MANY times in the past. If that was a crime I would already be serving life. :-) However, when I do things on voluntary basis I prefer to do things the "right way"(TM). Still, your script doesn't look that bad. The text replacements in particular are not wrong to have in Javascript. --Patrik Stridvall 10:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've done it. I've modified this page and Monobook.js to hide them. It seems to be working from here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 11:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work for me as well. While it is seriously ugly, I don't think it will disturb anything else. Ah well, I guess it will have to do for now. I will try to submit the my "hidden=yes" patch when I have cleaned it up so perhaps we can remove the kludge in the future. --Patrik Stridvall 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That would be very welcome. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted it now as bug id 4971. As to whether they will accept or as how to get it deployed here, I have no idea. --Patrik Stridvall 10:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participles[edit]

The button labels are not quite correct. As it applies to verbs, "-ing" words are present participles while "-ed" applies to both past and past participle (if regular, as most). It would be a lot clearer to me to just list the endings: "v. + ing", "v. + ed" Davilla 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is incorrect? That "present" should really be labelled "present participle"? Please remember the target audience here is not you, but rather the random new user. (And I know you do fine entries without the templates.) Do we really want these to be any more cryptic than they already are? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the correct labels would be more confusing. I was thinking that the labels "v. + ing" and "v. + ed" would be more translucent, but I'm starting to wonder if it would be even simpler to drop the part of speech and just use the endings. Apart from the basic noun, verb, and adjective, these are:
  • -s
    The equivalent of "Plural and 3rd person":
    • ===Noun===
      <!--applies-if-word-is-a-countable-noun-->
    • ===Verb===
      <!--applies-if-word-is-a-regular-verb-->
  • -es
    Nearly identical to the above. This would only be necessary if, for convenience and legibility, the page-name substitution could be carried out before editing takes place.
  • -ed
    Past and two senses of the past participle:
    • ===Adjective===
      <!--usually-applies-if-root-is-a-transitive-verb-->
    • ===Verb===
  • -er
    Additionally provides utility for a handful of -or words.
    • ===Adjective===
      <!--applies-if-root-is-a-comparable-adjective-->
    • ===Noun===
      <!--may-apply-if-root-is-a-verb-->
  • -est
    Probably the least useful, but included for completeness.
    • ===Adjective===
  • -ing
    See discussion in next section about "Missing POS".
  • -ly
    Otherwise listed as the adverb button. The benefit of a separate page, rather than redirecting to the adjective, is the inclusion of synonyms not derived from adjectives.
    (Edit: Davilla 07:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • ===Adjective===
In my opinion this reduces the layer of obfuscation in the selection of new-page buttons when there's no match. In fact, it may even be possible to reduce the choice of buttons mechanically depending on the search string, which is why I've listed -ly separate from the other parts of speech. That would be a major benefit to breaking it down this way. The question is if the instuctions above are too confusing. Personally I find it very easy to delete blocks of text. (Deleting little inline chunks here and there is a completely different matter.) Davilla 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn. I finished my edits to Nogomatch before I saw this.

So instead of 12 or 16 boxes, you could then work it down to 8?

How about these then?

Connel version

You can also preload the format from these:
Basic --All-- Noun Plural
Verb Third Person Participle Past & PP
Adjective Adverb Comparative   Superlative

That way, right up front, advanced users have something to pick (which is a matter of just cutting lines out) yet all the "raw" forms are still there?


or    


Davilla version
You can preload from these helpers
based on your word's ending:
Basic -s -es -ed
-er -est -ing -ly

Then if needed, the -s and -es could be combined to make room for an --All-- here also. This has the very-slight disadvantage of needing a new set of preload templates to match these concepts.

My description of the "Davilla version" included n., v., and adj., but their inclusion depends on practicality. (The -ly and adv. are too similar to distinguish.) -es and -s should be combined for now. The difference between those templates is just a handful of characters, all of them e's. It's really just a convenience if the technical hurdles are ever achieved, and the design depends on the technical implementation anyways. Davilla 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the above (add n., v., adj. and *all*, and combine -s, -es) there's only one more template in your list than mine, and it's a result of combining the plural with third personal. Davilla 07:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that might end up much cleaner. I agree also that yours lends itself better to automatic defaulting of the "correct" one from a drop-down combo box.

Shall we discuss it a little more, or shall I be bold here?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big change. We should wait to see what others think. Davilla 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not such a big change. In fact all of the templates already exist (see section below). It's just another way of looking at it. Davilla 07:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could always include both tables for a couple days, to see which ones get used. I suspect yours being more specific and naturally more automated will quickly gain popularity. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing POS[edit]

I have modified some of the templates not because of style preference but because they were missing parts of speech. Please review my definitions, particularly for "-ing":

Gerund form of the verb blog; the action of one who is blogging.

Davilla 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Also affected: "-ed".[reply]

BTW, blogging is a fine example of a word that is a present participle, but neither a noun nor an adjective. Nonsense --> "Here, let me take out the blogging for you." --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please slow down there cowboy!

I asked around (especially on IRC) months ago for a long time before proceeding with this stuff.

You have a very POV stance on these things. The only coherent way to deal with the separate situations is to have separate buttons for each situation. Remember, the target audience IS NOT YOU! It is the newcomer who has never made an entry on any wiki ever before.

Most importantly, the raw forms must be raw. Why are you asserting that there are no present participle forms of verbs that have no identically spelled noun? (If you didn't realize you were asserting that, please go back and review the changes you made!)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 00:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I left a comment saying that the adjective form doesn't apply to transitive verbs, but if you think this is confusing then I have no problems with a minimalist approach. I added it because I've seen Wikipedia entries that cover the case of "a blogging student", but most dictionaries do not list these in the general case. However, the gerund form is well known. "Blogging is a useless activity." "Throwing a ball is fun." That should certainly be included, but I'll slow down as you request and let someone else do it. Davilla 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We have not discussed gerunds on the beer parlour for a long time. I do not have any objection to creating a template:new en noun part. I think that would be a great idea actually. I do have a strong objection to overloading the present participle template, as I think you now may understand.
I'll reorganize the Nogomatch table once more. As much as I want to, I don't think I can do away with the "[Basic]" template. The intermediate and advanced are problematic however. Our regular contributors don't ever use them, as new words are tracked down from various lists most of the time. Would a new user be overwhelmed by the advanced and intermediate choices? Of course! So it is not wise to continue advertizing theose two buttons so prominently, I think. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments on removal. I'm in the same boat as the users you mention who think the advanced template is difficult to use, the reason being that it's so thoroughly commented. Why would an advanced user need so many directions? It should be discarded in its present rendition, but I wonder if it could find a new raison faire in a skeleton form, a more useful version of the Entry Layout page and at the same level of hierarchy in terms of its definitive authority over standards. As to the basic one, it has to remain as a brief tutorial, but there should be more motivation to move away from it. Maybe the choices could be "Tutorial" (presently Basic), "Basic", and "Advanced" (or "Complete"). The new Basic template would replace Intermediate and provide a practical backbone to work off of. Practical means that it is annotated only where necessary. A single part of speech will suffice because it can be copied and pasted when needed. I'll try to start something at, say, template:new_en_useful. Davilla 02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes any sense whatsoever, upon implementation the function of "Basic" and "Complete" have been rolled into the latter. Davilla 16:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "users" that I mention are not talkative; I have had to delete a few entries where the only contents were the template. I haven't seen anyone properly use them. OTOH, if someone did use it properly, I would have no way of knowing for sure. But so far it doesn't look like that has been the case. Wiktionary entries develop over time. I cannot think of any entry that has multiple etymologies, that was entered with more than one etymology at the outset.
If you create template:new en --all-- that would be helpful. I think the concept of an intermediate template is just wrong. The current "Advanced" template can be discarded, for all the reasons you stated. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of providing separate skeletons for ===Adjective===, ===Noun===, and ===Verb=== are to give someone like you or me an opportunity to select the right form for the inflection line and delete the rest. With that said, it very strongly supports using your "endings" selection criteria...if we know beforehand what the ending is, then lots of pieces fall into place. All of the inflection lines no longer have a choice of items, but instead a single (correct) line. So now, how do we make this work? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stick to these template names then?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I was hoping that the old templates would be restored to their last state, and the new templates would have all the new formatting, so that we don't get our wires crossed any more. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davilla, this is some excellent work you've done. I am too tired to comment further now, but thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, thanks. Hope one of these words out. At some point in the near future I'll hardly be active anymore though.
If you want to keep the old templates that's no problem, just copy them and update the styling. I know the style can be a fairly contentious issue around here, and I'd just as well let template:new_en_useful pan out. That template is kind of a monster though, whereas the others are pretty basic, so maybe you had something else in mind? Davilla 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was certainly thinking bare-bonez, it is true. But having seen your useful template, I see that I can finally figure out how to do the new quotations style (that style in particular refuses to stick in my brain.) The major change I would consider suggesting at this point, would be to stick to English. That is, each language is intended to have its own set of "new_xx_*" templates. Adding a language is opening a can-o-worms. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy this sure garnered a lot of attention! All kidding aside, I am concerned that such an ugly version is still sitting there right now. I'll add your "useful" template now, and comment out the bottom row to try to make it look a little better. I'm tempted to put {{Wiktionary:Project-Nogomatch}} as the entire contents of MediaWiki:Nogomatch so that you can edit it at your leisure, just like the templates themselves. I will also start taking your other comined template versions and move them into the names I provided above (unless you have objections to those names.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "attention"? It's just the two of us.
I don't really care about the names. I think only a handful of people ever really look them up by name. But if you're concerned about it, --all-- looks funny to me. Why not just template:new en?
Yes, it is just the two of us. My little joke. Sorry. I can live with template:new en. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next phase[edit]

Looking at WT:BP, I see the new simple English simple:MediaWiki:Talkpagetext which clicks in place one more piece of the puzzle for me. That would definitely be the place to put a row of small buttons to "reload this new page" using one of your templates. That is the row of buttons would be one button for each. Depending on the size of buttons we find/make, we could probably fit about 50 different preload templates if we could dream up that many variations.

The challenge then becomes on how to follow the KISS principle. There certainly should be a links to WT:ELE, WT:CFI, Help:Contents, etc. But for the "magic button row" I think we'd be best starting out with just your templates. Maybe also a "Proper noun" template, an "{{abbreviation}}" template, an "{{initialism}}" template and an {{acronym}}" template.

For button design, we won't be able to integrate any logos; these need to stay small. Normal blue/gray buttons, (perhaps gradient like the top of this edit box I'm typing in now) with black text: "N", "-s", "-es", "-ed", "-er", "-ing", "-est", "-ly", "PN", "{Ab}", "{I}", "{a}", "ALL".

Those are the combinations you suggested in the first place, plus the few that were missed along the way.

With a bit of javascript, we can determine if the edit box has been typed in yet. If so, then clicking any of those buttons would pop up an alert (w/ a cancel button) before reloading the page using the newly selected preload template. I know the Russian Wikipedia had some similar code, so it shouldn't be hard at all. (See w:WP:TOOLS.)

You know anyone good at making buttons? Or should I try goofing around in the Gimp?

With a tiny bit more javascript, the variable {{PAGENAME}} can be inspected, and special cases like "-y" endings, "-e" endings and "-ch" and "-sh" endings can be detected, then adapted for. Little XMLish placeholders within the templates could tell the javascript where to do replacements. Et voilà! Complete regular English inflections can be done for people at the click of a button, as per Uncle G's templates. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I had to do some gymnastics at the very top of User:Connel MacKenzie/monobook.js to glom the page name. But they were easy gymnastics, if somewhat kludgy. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simplicity is good. Leave the inflections to the Javascript, eliminating the need for those buttons. For the rest, I would take a personal survey of what people are using to create and augment pages. There are probably a lot of "templates" out there stored on hard drives and not the server. You may discover that people have different interests, certain groups of words they target. If I were a translator I would probably start with the definitions as given on the page being translated. But you can't be sure what you'll discover until you ask. Davilla 07:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, that's why I'm talking about these changes before doing them. I am very well aware that people have different interests. But the only thing preload templates can be used for is populating a new page. Translators will not encounter these. Regular contributors tend to work off lists...they will not see MW:Nogomatch. People not using "Monobook" skin will not see these. So these features I'm proposing are directed almost exclusively to the brand new Wiktionary user. I fail to see how the Javascript can correctly accomplish the inflections without the buttons. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you meant you were putting the buttons on the edit page itself. I take it you still want to use a button for the suffixes, which is probably better than assuming what the user wants. I meant that Javascript would reduce the number of those buttons down, potentially to one suffix at most. And by survey I didn't mean talk about changes here, I meant actually ask people, via individual messages. I'd be willing to volunteer if you like. Davilla 09:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great (you doing a survey.) As far as buttons, um, well, I was talking about both. I was assuming that the buttons would hide themselves (or at least gray out) if the edit was not for a new page. I guess that would cover more than just new users, but still exclude translators (by and large.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional suffixes[edit]

  • -ness is generally an uncountable noun.
  • -tion is generally a noun w/reg pl.
  • -tions is generally a pl. noun.
  • -tant is generally a noun w/reg. pl.
  • -tants is generally a pl. noun.
  • -ism is generally singular noun.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently discovered how to add buttons to the row of buttons above the edit box. In my monobook.js, I add the #R button currently. I'll have to glom a blank button from somewhere, then make these buttons. Then I can just add the row of buttons in my monobook.js to further test. These buttons will only be active when editing a new page, so I still have to figure out how to tell if the "Article" link is red, but that shouldn't be too hard.
It may be easier on you and more versitile overall to make the buttons active when the edit box contents is blank. Davilla 17:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on any of these buttons will simply reload the current edit page with "&preload=Template%3Anew_en_{whatever}". Once this works, we can just scrap the overly verbose MediaWiki:Nogomatch approach. IIRC, on small screen sizes, it will just auto-flow the buttons onto a second or third row...so we can have as many varieties as we can dream up.
I'd like opinions on syntax for what should go inside the preload templates. To accomplish "PAGENAME"-ing (minus the "ing" ending) I'll have to use Javascript again. But I think the preload template syntax should not be {{PAGENAME}}-ing as that might be ambiguous, and conflicts with current wikisyntax.
--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entry templates[edit]

I have done a page with English and Swedish subpages for listing the available templates. The reason I called them entry templates and not something using "nogomatch" in the name is that I see a future there they can be parameterized and used by other things like bots or MediaWiki extensions. --Patrik Stridvall 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive! Nicely done. Question though: What is the "uses" column is for? Any entry that "uses" these templates cannot appear on whatlinkshere as the template is not included, is was preloaded (and therefore is a part of that entry.) The column being there makes it look like they are not used (when in fact they are, and have been quite heavily at certain times.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, while I agree that the "uses" column is not that useful for the the reason given above, it not entirely useless either talk pages and other kinds of pages might and does link to them. Still, since it might cause some confusion we probably should add some sort of comment explaining that... --Patrik Stridvall 17:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Searchdisabled[edit]

During very heavy load times, searching is sometimes disabled. When this happens, the alternate page is used. Is there any reason that should not also use the identical layout? The options presented to the user (by this) shouldn't be any different, whether there are search results listed below or not, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you arrive at Searchdisabled by pressing Go or either Search or Go during heavy volume? I would presume either button. Nogomatch applies to the first, not to all searches, so it wouldn't be exactly the same. I don't think there's much conflict though. By changing Searchdisabled to match Nogomatch, you're adding entry templates to the case when users press Search during heavy volume. Better if it can be avoided, but not a big problem IMO.
By the way, is it possible to turn off some searches, particularly those from Go, and not all searches?
Also, considering how valuable searches are in terms of computation time, wouldn't it be better to place the entry templates at the bottom? Davilla 03:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't know.
  2. I don't know.
  3. When searches are disabled, there are no search results, right?
These are good questions. Anyone reading this know? Searching hasn't been disabled for a while, so I can't check. And when it has been disabled, it has been disabled for weeks at a time.
--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: The main difference between "Go" and "Search" is that "Go" tries to do a few things first before running the code for "Search".
Long answer: Very simplified what happends is this
  1. Try go get a near match if success redirect to that page and stop.
  2. Output MediaWiki:Nogomatch.
  3. Output MediaWiki:Searchresulttext.
  4. If search is disabled output MediaWiki:Searchdisabled and stop.
  5. Output the search results
  6. Output the search box
If "Go" start at (1) if "Search" start at (3). --Patrik Stridvall 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then provided there's no match, Nogomatch is always displayed on Go, even if search is disabled, so there's no need to duplicate the entry templates on the Searchdisabled page. The semi-disabled function I suggested above would output Nogomatch and then stop; for a search, the user would have to do one explicitly.
It seems to be trivial to implement. However, nobody have even commented on the patch I submitted some time ago concerning the inputbox extension. So I guess it will have be the hard way. Subscribe to the relevant mailing lists get to know some people then possible get CVS access. Don't hold your breath though. --Patrik Stridvall 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I don't know if the search results under that huge table in Nogomatch are combed through. Davilla 12:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. If there are search results they are displayed regardless of whether you did "Go" or "Search" (providing you don't get a near match or searching is disabled of course). --Patrik Stridvall 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last time searching was disabled, I recall the text from Nogomatch disappearing. Searching has not been disabled for a while now, but when it is, it is disabled for weeks at a time. Maybe that bug has been fixed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. However, the current CVS version always displays "Nogomatch". I have both read the source code and tested disabling search with my own installation. --Patrik Stridvall 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. Thanks for testing it! --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com[edit]

Why was the "dictionary.com" thing removed? The discussion about it in the past concluded that that was the worst offender (by far) and therefore should be emphasized by name. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page should be moved back into the MediaWiki talk: space. It took me a while to discover that Wiktionary:Project-Nogomatch is not the same as MediaWiki:Nogomatch.
On topic: ask Dave Ross. I don't mind whether we specify it or not. — Vildricianus 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Noexactmatch[edit]

Hello, please move MediaWiki:Nogomatch to MediaWiki:Noexactmatch because nogomatch does not work anymore. Thanks, best regards --birdy (:> )=| 12:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for Connel to do this, as he might have some new fancy thing in mind for it. — Vildricianus 12:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Punctuation[edit]

I posted this previously at the Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Search_special_page_correction, but unfortunately it was mostly ignored by those there. On the page MediaWiki:Noexactmatch, there is a phrase ("Expert blank template") and a dependent clause ("When she crosses"), both with periods after them that should not be there. Considering that this is probably a much-frequented page, this grammatical error should be corrected. 24.5.197.121 07:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Those there" are the same as "those here", though. — Vildricianus 09:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mean to say that no one here will correct it either. I would be most happy to correct it myself, but it is a locked page that only certain users can edit. I feel it would be untoward to let its locked status prevent changes such as the one I suggest, that is, a minor grammatical correction. 24.5.197.121 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not... the change has already taken place. Just a note, though. Thanks. — Vildricianus 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion debate[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

MediaWiki:Noexactmatch[edit]

Wiktionary:Project-Nogomatch[edit]

Both not used now that mediawiki uses MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new (see w:MediaWiki talk:Noexactmatch). I don't think there's anything of historical value to keep around. --Bequw → τ 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But who knows when they might switch back.​—msh210℠ 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there's an undelete. And judging from the little I know of mediawiki development they tend to change to wholly new identifiers rather than to previously deprecated ones. --Bequw → τ 19:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki:Nogomatch (an even older deprecated message) now redirects to MediaWiki:Noexactmatch. Maybe both should redirect to MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new. --Bequw → τ 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit more digging it seems that MediaWiki:Noexactmatch is a valid message (just not used) so it's fine to keep that. Wiktionary:Project-Nogomatch I think should still be deleted as MediaWiki:Nogomatch isn't even a valid system message anymore. --Bequw → τ 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what is the benefit of deleting deprecated mediawiki messages? - [The]DaveRoss 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the burden of proof lies with keeping something (except of course in the User:). Obsolete files create confusion over what is valid as well as impede editors in finding and using the valid/useful files. --Bequw → τ 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well these are mostly protected pages and when they are edited (extremely rarely) it is only by highly experienced users (admins). If there is actually some evidence of end users being affected by deprecated Mediawiki messages I would love to see it, otherwise this is just a waste of time and effort. - [The]DaveRoss 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins aren't necessarily always highly experienced in all aspects of Wiktionary. And no amount of experience will let you know when a message is obsolete, if all of that experience predates the obsolescence. If I see a bit of text in the interface, and I search the MediaWiki namespace for that bit of text, it's very unhelpful and confusing if I end up at an interface page that no longer does anything. I consider it a service if Bequw (or anyone else) is willing to go delete all these obsolete pages; that is the very best way to document that they're obsolete. —RuakhTALK 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's certainly not "helping" anyone, so yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it (or this discussion at least) helped me find what to update in another Wiki that had be broken since the change. I can't see it's doing that much damage being around. Most users won't even know it's there so deletion seems a little obsessive. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept for no consensus, given the date of the last comment, should've been kept long ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Project-Nogomatch&oldid=49716336"